Dismissing the appeals the Court held  that the approach of the High Court on the question of attribution was fair and reasonable. The Tribunal arrived at the quantum of revenue accruing to the assessee in respect of bookings in India attributable to activities carried out in India, on the basis of a “functions performed, assets used and risks” analysis undertaken. The commission paid to the distribution agents by the assessee was more than twice the amount of attribution and this had already been taxed. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly concluded that this extinguished the assessment. The question as to what proportion of profits arose or accrued in India is essentially one of fact. On this question of fact, the Tribunal had taken into account relevant factors. Therefore, the concurrent orders of the Tribunal and the High Court did not call for any interference. Article 7 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the United States of America would not apply, as in the contracting State, the entire income derived by the assessee  would be taxable. This is why section 9(1) confines the taxable income to that proportion which is attributable to the operations carried out in India. The court did not go into the question whether the computers placed in the premises of the travel agents and the nodes and leased lines formed a fixed place permanent establishment of the assessee in India, as it had affirmed the High Court on the first issue. (AY. 2003-04 to 2006-07)