Tribunal held that in UOI v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal [2001] 249 ITR 219 (SC) held that it is not open to revenue to accept the judgment in the case of the assessee in that case and challenge its correctness in the case of another assessee, without just cause. Accordingly following the co-ordinate bench decision and having regard to the fact that the Revenue has not pointed out any reasons whatsoever as to why the co-ordinate bench decision will not apply on this assessment year as well, the conclusions arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals) is to be approved. (AY. 2003 -04)
DCIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd. (2019) 177 ITD 26 (Ahd.)(Trib.)
S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital–Provision for interest liability–Held to be allowable as deduction-Rule of consistency- It is not open to revenue to accept a judgment in the case of one assessee, and appeal, against the identical judgment in the case of another. It was held that such a differential treatment on the same set of facts was not permissible in law. [S. 43B]