Following the decision of the High Court in the assessee’s own case, the Tribunal held that the Liaison Office in India carried on only preparatory and auxiliary activities and did not constitute a Permanent Establishment under Article 5(4)(e) of the India-Korea DTAA. Accordingly, the income earned by the assessee outside India could not be attributed to the Liaison Office and was not taxable in India.  The assessee, a Korean company, supplied equipment to Indian customers under divisible contracts, with offshore supplies being completed outside India. The Tribunal held that the offshore supplies had no nexus with any Permanent Establishment or business connection in India and could not be characterised as Fees for Technical Services. The receipts from offshore supplies were therefore not chargeable to tax in India. The Tribunal held that interest received by the assessee from its associated enterprise on delayed payments was governed by Article 12 of the India-Korea DTAA. Since the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment in India, the exclusion contained in Article 12(6) was inapplicable and the interest was taxable only in accordance with the provisions of Article 12. (AY. 2009-10 to 2011-12).