Commissioner Of Income Tax (Internationaltaxation)-2, Delhi v. Lg Philips Display Korea Co. Ltd

$~21, 23, 24, & 25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 149/2021 & CM APPL. 33562/2021 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONALTAXATION)-2, DELHI..... AppellantTAXATION)-2, DELHI..... Appellant ThroughMr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocatewith Ms. Easha Kadiyan,Advocate.with Ms. Easha Kadiyan,Advocate. versus LG PHILIPS DISPLAY KOREA CO. LTD ..... RespondentThroughMr. Deepak Chopra, Advocateand Mr. Ankul Goyal,Advocate. +ITA 151/2021 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONALTAXATION)-2, DELHI….. Appellant ….. AppellantThroughMr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocatewith Ms. Easha Kadiyan,Advocate.with Ms. Easha Kadiyan,Advocate. Versus PT LP DISPLAY INDONESIA ….. Respondent ThroughMr. Deepak Chopra, Advocateand Mr. Ankul Goyal,Advocate. +ITA 152/2021 & CM APPL. 33635/2021 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONALTAXATION)-2, DELHI….. Appellant ThroughMr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocatewith Ms. Easha Kadiyan,Advocate.with Ms. Easha Kadiyan,Advocate. Versus LG PHILIPS DISPLAY KOREA CO. LTD ….. RespondentThroughMr. Deepak Chopra, Advocateand Mr. Ankul Goyal,Advocate. +ITA 153/2021 & CM APPL. 33636/2021 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONALTAXATION)-2, DELHI….. AppellantThroughMr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocatewith Ms. Easha Kadiyan,Advocate. Versus LG PHILIPS DISPLAY KOREA CO. LTD ….. RespondentThroughMr. Deepak Chopra, Advocateand Mr. Ankul Goyal,Advocate. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHANHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA MANMOHAN, J. (Oral) The hearing has been done by way of video conferencing.1.Present appeals have been filed challenging the order dated20[th]October, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [forshort ‘ITAT’] in ITA No. 1886/DEL/2014 for AY 2006-07, ITA No.1888/DEL/2014 for AY 2005-06 whereby the appeals of theappellant-Revenue were dismissed as well as CO. No. 40/DEL/2017in 1885/DEL/2014 and CO. No. 41/DEL/2017 in 1886/DEL/2014whereby the cross objections of the respondent-assessee were allowed.2.The questions of law proposed by the appellant-revenue in oneof the present appeals being ITA No. 153/2021 are as under:- A. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, theLd. ITAT erred in law in quashing the assessmentproceedings in the case of assessee without appreciatingthe facts the assessee has a business connection in Indiaunder Section 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 andhas a PE, in the form of M/s L.G. Electronics India Ltd.under Article 5(1) & 5(2) of DTAA between India andKorea?Ld. ITAT erred in law in quashing the assessmentproceedings in the case of assessee without appreciatingthe facts the assessee has a business connection in Indiaunder Section 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 andhas a PE, in the form of M/s L.G. Electronics India Ltd.under Article 5(1) & 5(2) of DTAA between India andKorea? B. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, theLd. ITAT erred in law in holding that no income isattributable to the assessee PE in India?Ld. ITAT erred in law in holding that no income isattributable to the assessee PE in India? C. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, theLd. ITAT erred in law in setting aside re-opening ofassessment under Section 147 of the Act by the AO?Ld. ITAT erred in law in setting aside re-opening ofassessment under Section 147 of the Act by the AO? 3.Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset submits thatthe issues arising in these appeals are similar to ITA No. 145/2021 inthe case of PT LP Display Indonesia and ITA No. 147/2021 in thecase of LG Philips Display Korea, which were listed for hearing on21[st]September, 2021 & 22[nd]September 2021 respectively. 4.This court has dismissed the above mentioned appeals of theRevenue for reasons contained in the orders dated 21st September,2021 & 22nd September 2021. C. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, theLd. ITAT erred in law in setting aside re-opening ofassessment under Section 147 of the Act by the AO?Ld. ITAT erred in law in setting aside re-opening ofassessment under Section 147 of the Act by the AO? 3.Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset submits thatthe issues arising in these appeals are similar to ITA No. 145/2021 inthe case of PT LP Display Indonesia and ITA No. 147/2021 in thecase of LG Philips Display Korea, which were listed for hearing on21[st]September, 2021 & 22[nd]September 2021 respectively. 4.This court has dismissed the above mentioned appeals of theRevenue for reasons contained in the orders dated 21st September,2021 & 22nd September 2021. 5.Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the orderdated 4[th]September, 2018 passed by Commissioner Income Tax(Appeal) [for short ‘CIT(A)’] passed in the case of LG ElectronicsIndia Limited [for short ‘LGEIL’] also covers the case of the presentRespondent-assessees for the assessment years under considerationwherein the CIT(A) in the 201 proceedings held that none of the AEs,apart from LG Korea, had PE in India. 6.Given that the same issue arises in the present proceedings, nosubstantial question of law arises in the present appeals. Accordingly,the appeals alongwith applications being bereft of merit are dismissed.7.The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of theorder be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail. MANMOHAN, J SEPTEMBER 27, 2021KA NAVIN CHAWLA, J