Held  that the Tribunal had set aside the order to the Assessing Officer on the limited issue to verify whether any of the foreign suppliers had a permanent establishment in India under the respective Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements. The Tribunal had held that the installation or supervisory services in connection with sale of machinery or equipment had to cross the specified time threshold limit for the non-resident entity to be treated as having a permanent establishment in India. The Assessing Officer while passing the order had not followed the directions of the Tribunal and had relied on the provisions of section 5(2)(b) read with section 9(1)(i) of the Act to hold that the non-resident entities had a business connection in India. Further, the Assessing Officer had failed to bring in material on record to establish that the foreign suppliers had a permanent establishment in accordance with the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements and the decision of this Tribunal. Thus, the Assessing Officer had clearly exceeded his jurisdiction in making enquiries and examining issues which were clearly beyond the ambit of the set aside proceedings directed by the Tribunal. Held that The Indian entities (agents) did not have any authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the non-resident suppliers and the Indian entities did not maintain any stock of goods or merchandise on behalf of the non-resident entities in India and the Indian entities or agents were not mainly or wholly securing orders on behalf of the non-resident in India. Therefore, the findings of both authorities as to the existence of permanent establishments of the vendors in India deserved to be set aside and the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in treating the assessee in default for not charging tax under section 195 of the Act was reversed.(AY.2010-11, 2011-12)