in CIT. v. Sun Engineering Works (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) the honourable court explained how to read a judgement, the court observed; “while applying the decision to a later cases, the court must carefully try to ascertain the true principal laid down by the decision of the Supreme Court and not to pick out words or sentences from the Judgment divorced from the context of question under consideration by the court to support their reasoning.”
In the case of CIT v. L.G. Ramamurthi 110 ITR 453 (Mad) (HC) ; CIT v. S. Devaraj 73 ITR 1 (Mad) (HC) it was held that For the sake of uniformity, one Bench of the Tribunal is bound to follow the view expressed by another Bench of the Tribunal unless the earlier view is per incurious. In a catena of decisions viz CIT v. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd (1991) 188 ITR 1 (Bom) (HC) UOI v. Paras Laminates Pvt. Ltd. (1990) 186 ITR 722 (SC); Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patniak (2002) 254 ITR 99 (SC) it has been held that, an Appellate Tribunal should not come to a conclusion totally contradictory to the conclusion reached by the earlier Bench of the Tribunal. Where a Bench differs from an earlier Bench, the matter should be referred to a larger Bench. In the case of Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (2010) 252 ELT 168 (Bom) (HC) and ITO v. Baker Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 125 ITD 1 (TM) (Mum) (Trib) it has been held that where one bench of the Appellate Tribunal cannot differ from the view of another Co-ordinate Bench. Also refer Hatkesh Co-op Housing Soceity Ltd. v. ACIT (Bom.)(HC) (ITA No 328 of 2014 dated August 22,2016 www.itatonline.org)

The Tribunal is bound to follow the order of the single bench unless the facts are different or the earlier Bench has not considered the judgement of Apex Court or Jurisdictional High Court while deciding the issue .