The Tribunal held that the contracts could not be seen independently. The dominant purpose or intention of the buyer from the very beginning was installation of multilayer packaging coated board plant under the supervision of the assessee. The business activities in India were not isolated instances but represented real and intimate relationship between activities of the assessee done outside India and those done inside India. The business operations in India were revenue generating as these operations were required to earn the contract and to meet the contractual obligations. Therefore, all parameters of business connection were satisfied in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, the income was deemed to accrue or arise in India in terms of section 9(1)(i) from the offshore supply of goods. Tribunal also held that  in addition to the marketing activities or engineering survey pre or post-awarding of contract for which no information had been filed by the assessee the service permanent establishment had played a role in assembling and bringing the equipment to a deliverable state as agreed under the supply agreement. In such facts and circumstances 35 per cent. of the profits could be attributed to the permanent establishment. That the assessee had accepted the existence of the permanent establishment before the Assessing Officer and it could not contend that it was the responsibility of the deductor to deduct tax at source. Thus, the assessee was liable for interest under section 234B .( AY.2010-11)