The Hon’ble Tribunal held that as per the agreement between the Maruti Suzuki India Limited (‘MSIL’), the assessee does not undertake any activity of installation and commissioning of equipment supplied and was providing supervision services of the installation and commissioning to MSIL. As regards the supplies made by the assessee, no profit had accrued to it in India as it had not undertaken any activity of installation and commissioning of equipment supplied and was independently and separately providing supervision services of the installation and commissioning of such equipment, which is taxable under Article 12(2) of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The same is separately taxed in return of income by the assessee. The assessee had no PE in India under Article 5 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Japan. The facts of the present case are similar to the earlier years which are also verified by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. Thus, it is undisputed fact that the assessee, a foreign company has been making supplies from outside India and as such, since no income has accrued to it in India, said income could not be brought to tax. The assessee was making supervision of installation and had received supervision fee separately which is offered to tax in return of income. Transactions of supplies made are independent and separate with the supervisory fee for MSIL. The consideration for supplier and supervision is also separate. Thus, such supplies cannot be brought to tax in India. (AY. 2013-14)