Dismissing the appeal of the assessee the Court held that, the finding by the ITAT that RRIL constituted the PE of the assessee is primarily a finding of fact based on the appreciation of evidence. No change in the factual matrix is pointed out by the assessee, and the finding returned does not raise a substantial question of law. While determining the issue whether RRIL constituted the PE of the assessee, the authorities have not relied upon the second explanation in S.  9(1) at all, and the determination of the said issue was undertaken dehors the said explanation, upon appreciation of the evidence unearthed during the survey. The explanation may, or may not, be prospective. In any event, the same would certainly not have the effect of nullifying the determination made on the issue of PE on the basis of the evidence collected and the pre-existing law as prevalent prior to the amendment of S.  9(1) with effect from 1^st April, 2019. That, clearly, is not the purport of the substituted Clause (a) of Explanation-2 to S.  9(1) of the Act, with effect from 1^st April, 2019. (AY. 2004 -05 to 2009 -10)