Subsequent events can render reassessment proceedings infructuous when later findings settle the permanent establishment dispute.

Subsequent judicial and appellate findings that the foreign associated enterprises, other than LG Korea, did not have a permanent establishment in India rendered the reassessment controversy infructuous. The Delhi High Court reasoned that, because later developments after issuance of the reassessment notice had already resolved the underlying tax issue, entertaining the Revenue's appeal would amount to revisiting those later determinations. No substantial question of law survived, and the reassessment challenge was liable to be dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment proceedings and the Revenue's appeal survived in view of subsequent events and whether any substantial question of law arose for consideration.

Analysis: The reassessment was initiated on the premise that the foreign associated enterprises had a permanent establishment in India through LGEIL. During the pendency of the appeal, later judicial and appellate findings had already determined that the associated enterprises, other than LG Korea, did not have a permanent establishment in India. The Court held that entertaining the appeal would amount to sitting in appeal over the effect of those subsequent determinations and that, in light of the later developments after issuance of the reassessment notice, the proceedings had become infructuous. On that basis, no substantial question of law survived.

Conclusion: The reassessment challenge did not survive and the appeal was liable to be dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed because the controversy had been overtaken by subsequent events, leaving nothing substantive for adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Subsequent events that conclusively resolve the underlying tax controversy can render pending reassessment proceedings and the related appeal infructuous, leaving no substantial question of law to be decided.

---