Petitioner challenged constitutional validity of proviso to  S. 10(34) and provisions of S. 115BDDA on ground that S. 115BBDA does not have any base and that provision makes hostile discrimination between a resident assessee and a non-resident assessee, as provision only applies to a resident assessee and it is  arbitrary, ultra vires and violative of article 14. Dismissing the petition the Court held that  proviso to S. 10(34) gives primacy to S. 115BBDA over S. 10(34) and provision of S. 115BA is clear and categeric as it stipulates that dividend income upto Rs. 10 lacs is not to be charged to tax at rate 10 per cent under S. 115BBDA. Court held that  non-residents are liable to pay tax in country of their residence and taxation regime applicable to non-residents need not be identical to that applicable to residents. Accordingly S.10(34) and 115BBDA are constitutionally valid.