Held, that income from offshore supplies was not liable to tax in India under section 44BBB as well as under the provisions of paragraph (6) of article 7 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Japan. Held that Mitsui was not a dependent agent permanent establishment of the assessee. Hence, no income could be attributed to the operations of the assessee in India and under article 7 of the Double Taxation Avoidance agreement. Held, that while computing the presumptive income books of account were not required to be maintained. Therefore, what was received by the assessee during the year a fixed percentage of such receipt was deemed to be the income. Order of CIT(A) is affirmed. (AY. 2009-10, 2011-12)