Software payments and Section 234B interest: binding precedent barred any fresh question of law in the Revenue's appeals.

The Delhi HC noted that the Revenue's appeals involved the same treaty and statutory questions already decided in binding precedent: whether payments for software supply constitute royalty under Article 12(3) of the Indo-China DTAA, and whether interest under Section 234B is payable. As those issues had previously been decided against the Revenue, the court held that no fresh question of law arose for consideration. The appeals were therefore dismissed, and the earlier ruling was treated as controlling on both the treaty characterisation and the interest issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue's appeals raised any fresh question of law in view of the earlier decision on the character of software payments under Article 12(3) of the Indo-China Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and on liability to interest under Section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The appeals concerned the same double taxation avoidance agreement and the same legal questions that had already been decided against the Revenue. The prior decision had held that payments for supply of software did not constitute royalty and that the question relating to interest under Section 234B stood covered against the Revenue.

Conclusion: No fresh question of law arose for consideration, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirms the binding effect of the earlier precedent on the same treaty and statutory questions, leaving no scope for interference in the Revenue's appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the legal issues are covered by an earlier binding decision on the same treaty and statutory provisions, no fresh question of law arises and the appeals are liable to be dismissed.

---