Dismissing the appeal of the revenue, the Court held that at least three co-ordinate Benches had taken the view that where an assessee computed book profits as per the prevailing law, no interest under section 234B could have been levied consequent to the inclusion of various items in computing book profits as per Explanation to section 115JB which were brought on the statute by the Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from April 1, 2001. The Department’s submission that some judgment was “obtained” was objectionable. The Department had stated that the co-ordinate Benches had failed to consider that there was no equity in tax matters, and since the imposition of interest was mandatory, there was no escape even though the assessees were not even expected to compute their book profits under section 115JB by imagining that several years later the law would be amended. While it was correct that no question of equity was involved in taxing matters, this principle did not obviate the necessity of the Department being fair to the court. The Department could not say whether it had challenged the decisions in the cases of the co-ordinate Benches which were delivered in the years 2020, 2011 and 2015. Undoubtedly, the Department would know whether it had challenged these matters before the Supreme Court. Fairness was expected from the Department in pointing out contrary and binding decisions directly on the issue, and an attempt could also be made to distinguish or seek a reference. But binding precedents should not be suppressed or attempted to be attacked casually. Court also held that the contention not raised before the Tribunal and not even framed in the memo of appeal cannot be questioned in an appeal under section 260A. (AY. 2005-06)