2015 (3) TMI 939

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in this case is whether the appellant was liable to pay interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the facts and circumstances of this case. 5. The appellant, non-resident companies, were sought to be taxed for their activity of distribution of news. In the assessment proceedings right up to ITAT, the levy of interest under Section 234B was upheld. 6. It was pointed out that the ITAT relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Director of Income Tax, International Taxation V. Alcatel Lucent USA Inc. (ITA No.327/2012 dated 7.11.2013). 7. On the strength of that decision the ITAT upheld interest liability under Section 234B. In Alcatel Lucent (supra), this Court had distinguished a previous decision of another D....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s are clear, the Court's duty is to administer the law in its terms. It is bound to adhere to its precedents; yet its devotion to a previous holding cannot blind it to the clear terms of the statute, wherever found. If Alcatel Lucent (supra) is correct and is to be applied in all situations, there would be dissimilar and asymmetrical results entirely dependent on the facts presented in each case. It is unclear what would be the outcome where the payee is, in fact, under the bona fide belief that it does not have a PE, or how the payer is to discern that a payee's assertion is intended to defeat the law. This Court therefore, notes that this precise question was addressed in Samsung Electronics (supra) by the Supreme Court, while rem....