Sanjiv Khanna, J.

1. This common judgment will dispose of these two sets of crossappeals by the Director of Income Tax, International Taxation and e-Fund Corporation, USA (e-Fund Corp., for short) relating to Assessment Years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and e-Fund IT Solutions Group Inc., USA (e-Fund Inc., for short) relating to Assessment Years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. The e- Fund Corp. and e-Fund Inc., when referred together have been described as the ‘assessee‘ and the Director of Income Tax, International Taxation has been referred to as the ‘Revenue‘. The cross-appeals arise out of two common orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, for short). The first order dated 30th September, 2010 relates to all assessment years, except assessment ITA No. 735/2011+connected appeals Page 7 of 102 years 2006-07 and 2007-08, which are subject matter of the second order of the tribunal dated 15th March, 2011.

2. The assessee are primarily aggrieved by the finding of the tribunal that they have Permanent Establishment (PE, for short) in India. They are also aggrieved with the initiation of the assessment proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short), whereas the Revenue is aggrieved by the finding of the tribunal relating to computation or attribution of the income earned by the assessee through the PE in India.

3. By order dated 27th September, 2011, the following substantial common questions of law were framed in the appeals Nos. 912/2011, 913/2011, 914/2011, 915/2011, 916/2011, 917/2011, 918/2011, 919/2011 and 920/2011 relating to assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2005-06 filed by the assessee:-

“1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer was justified in reopening the assessment under Section 147/148 of the Income-Tax Act?

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Appellant has a business connection in India under Section 9(1) of the Act?

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Appellant has a permanent establishment in India under Articles 5(1), 5(2) (1) and 5(4) of the India- US DTAA?

4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that appellant is liable to interest under Section 234A and 234B of the Act?”

4. By subsequent order dated 2nd March, 2012, two more questions of law being question Nos. 5 and 6 were framed and read as under:-

“5. Whether any income of eFunds International India Pvt. Ltd. Can be attributed and assessed in the hands of the appellant?

6. In case question no. (5) is answered against the appellant, whether the Tribunal was justified and correct in adopting the formula mentioned in the order and not accepting the stand of the assessee?”

4A. By order dated 17th November, 2011, the following substantial common questions of law were framed in the appeals ITA Nos. 1200/2011, 1201/2011, 1202/2011 and 1203/2011 relating to assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 filed by the assessee:-

“1. Whether the tribunal is correct in holding that the appellant has business connection in India under Section 9(1)(i) of the IT Act?

2. Whether the tribunal was correct in holding that the appellant has a permanent establishment in India under Arts 5(1), 5(2) (1) and 5(4) of the India-US DTAA?

3. Whether any income of e-funds international India pvt ltd can be attributed and assessed in the hands of the appellant?

4. In case Ques 3. Is answered against the appellant whether the tribunal was justified and correct in adopting the formula mentioned in the order and not accepting the stand of the assessee?”

In ITA Nos. 1201/2011 and 1203/2011 relating to assessment year 2006-07 the following additional substantial questions