“rule of consistency”

Judicial DoctrinesRadhasoamiRadhasoami1,041 judgments

The decision most relied on for rule of consistency is M/s Sahara India (Farms) v. CIT & Anr. (300 ITR 403), cited in 268 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on rule of consistency

M/s Sahara India (Farms) v. CIT & Anr.

300 ITR 403 · 2008 · Supreme Court

268

citing judgments

Administrative orders must be consistent with the rules of natural justice.

DIT (E) v. Apparel Export Promotion Council

245 ITR 492 · 2000 · High Court

193

citing judgments

The rule of consistency applies when facts or legal positions remain unchanged in earlier assessment years, preventing the Revenue from adopting a divergent stance in subsequent years without new material. This ensures stability and predictability in tax assessments.

Munjal Sales Corporation v. CIT

298 ITR 298 · 2008 · Supreme Court

191

citing judgments

The Supreme Court approves the mixed fund theory, holding that no interest disallowance is warranted under section 36(1)(iii) if investments or advances are made from the assessee's own non-interest bearing funds, even when mixed funds are available. This presumption applies when non-interest bearing funds are sufficient to meet the investments.

(i) Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain

1 SCC 373 · 1997 · Reported

187

citing judgments

A statute must be read as a whole, construing every clause with reference to its context and other provisions, to determine the legislature's real intention and ensure a consistent enactment. This principle, known as "ex visceribus actus," helps avoid inconsistencies within the law.

Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT

266 ITR 99 · 2004 · Supreme Court

181

citing judgments

The Revenue cannot take a conflicting stand from what it had earlier accepted in a previous assessment year without compelling justification. This principle of consistency applies to various issues, including the treatment of customs duty in closing inventory.

Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT

244 ITR 734 · 2000 · High Court

168

citing judgments

The Revenue is bound by the rule of consistency and cannot adopt a divergent position in a subsequent assessment year unless there is a change in facts or law.

Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ld v. DCIT

23 Taxmann.com 265 · 2012 · High Court

147

citing judgments

The rule of consistency does not override the correct application of law and should not be applied if it leads to an anomalous outcome.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India

282 ITR 273 · 2006 · Supreme Court

136

citing judgments

The rule of consistency requires that in the absence of any change in material facts or law, a different view or decision on an issue cannot be adopted for subsequent assessment years, thus ensuring uniformity in tax assessments.

Judgments citing rule of consistency

Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

ITA 372/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 371 & 372/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata 5Th Floor, Tower-C Vs Dlf, It Park-I 08 Majore Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaecv9657M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate & Pooja Saraf, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Ao”) Even Dt. 29/04/2022, Passed In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi, Dt. 18/02/2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 & Dt. 04/03/2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18:- “Ground 1:

For Appellant: Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate and Pooja Saraf, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 156Section 32(1)Section 92C

Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. been held consistently by the Hon’ble Courts that as per the Rule of consistency, when there is no change of facts, the assessee deserves to be allowed the benefit of depreciation on the written down value. The allowance ... without any material being placed on record to substantiate the shift in stand for the subject assessment year that the Tribunal emphasizing rule of consistency allowed Assesse’s appeal. We do not think that such a view which has been taken in the given facts and circumstances and peculiar

Primetals Technologies India Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

ITA 371/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate and Pooja Saraf, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 156Section 32(1)Section 92C

DCIT Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai vs. Itd Cementation India Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2090/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 80Section 86

No.1198/Mum/2021, claim was rejected. With respect to the earlier decisions of co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case it was held that rule of consistency cannot be a substitute for perpetuating an error. It was further held that the claim of foreseeable losses would be allowable in the year

Itd Cementation India Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

ITA 1400/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Jangid, CIT DR &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 80Section 86

DCIT(E), Circle-1(1), New Delhi vs. Indian Grameen Services, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 104/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(2)(a)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 25

period of more than two decades. We are in agreement with the Ld. CIT(A) that not only on the basis of the rule of consistency but also on the basis of the facts relating to the rent received by the assessee from HLI vis-à-vis the rent under

Punjab Kesari Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption) Ward 2(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is allowed in above terms

ITA 4086/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Income Tax Officer (Exemption) – 2(2) Punjab Kesari Charitable Room No. 502, Trust, 5Th Floor, 242, Bhandar Galli, Vs. Piramal Chamber, L.J. Road, Mahim- 400016 Lalbaug- 400012, Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatp0040R Assessee By : Shri. S. M. Kapoor Revenue By : Ms Madhu Malati Ghosh (Cit-Dr)

For Appellant: Shri. S. M. KapoorFor Respondent: MS Madhu Malati Ghosh (CIT-DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

also confirmed the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Therefore, respectfully following the precedence as aforesaid and by following the rule of consistency the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly directed the AO to allow the exemption u/s 11(1) of the Act with all the consequential benefits vide

Pg 1 Nochikuttai Primary Agricultural Coop Bank Ltd, Nochikuttai vs. Income Tax Officer, Erode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1498/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1498/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. M/S.Pg 1 Nochikuttai Primary – The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Ward-2(5), No.489, Punjai Puliampatti Road, Erode. Nochikuttai, Sathyamangalam, Erode-638 459. [Pan: Aaaap 1806 C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Shriram AdhethyenFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80

No.1498/Chny/2023 for AY 2018-19 M/s.PG 1 Nochikuttai Primary Agricultural Co-op. Bank Ltd. :: 4 :: Act, and for such a preposition cited rule of consistency. We find force in the submission of the Ld.AR and note that by an inadvertent bona fide mistake of the assessee while entering ITR Form

Six Continents Hotels, Inc., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 3(1)(2) Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2355/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

TACP receipts have already been settled in favour of the assessee in previous years and the same are not taxable in view of ‘Rule of consistency’. Further, no addition in relation to TACP was made by the Id. AO in A.Y. 2016-17 and A.Y. 2017- 18. The AO deviated

Vijay Kumar Goyal, Barwaha vs. Income Tax Officer TDS II Indore, Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 13/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore08 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivijay Kumar Goyal Ito, 48, Narmada Barwala Nfac Vs. Mp Delhi (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Asrpg8655L Assessee By Shri Ram Gilda, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08 .05.2024

Section 194Section 194ISection 201(1)

arising from the same facts and transaction of purchase of land by the assessee along with his brother and therefore, to maintain the rule of consistency we follow earlier order of this tribunal and decided this issue in favour of the assesse. Accordingly the impugned orders of the authorities below

Volvo Information Technology Ab, Sweden vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Taxation 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 2169/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153(1)

royalty, the same cannot be re-characterized to FTS in the subsequent years in absence of any change in facts as the rule of consistency would apply. In this context, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions: 1. Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT, 193 ITR 321 (SC) 2. CIT Vs. Kotak ... Assessing Officer rectifies his earlier mistake and determines the real nature and character of the income, it cannot be questioned. He submitted, rule of consistency cannot tie the hands of the Assessing Officer to assess the income correctly as each assessment year is a separate unit and the Assessing Officer

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kec International Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4078/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

Section 90

However, in the earlier assessment year and subsequent Assessment Years, the Coordinate Bench has sustained the same @0.20%. He prayed that following the rule of consistency the corporate guarantee @0.20% may be sustained by following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the earlier Assessment Years. 8. However ... atleast once in three years. The corporate guarantee cannot be same which was given in the A.Y.2011- 12. The Ld.AR prayed that the rule of consistence may be followed. 9. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities and prayed that the corporate guarantee rate

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kec International Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4076/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

Section 90

However, in the earlier assessment year and subsequent Assessment Years, the Coordinate Bench has sustained the same @0.20%. He prayed that following the rule of consistency the corporate guarantee @0.20% may be sustained by following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the earlier Assessment Years. 8. However ... atleast once in three years. The corporate guarantee cannot be same which was given in the A.Y.2011- 12, The Ld.AR prayed that the rule of consistence may be followed. 9. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities and prayed that the corporate guarantee rate

Kec International Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4022/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

Section 90

However, in the earlier assessment year and subsequent Assessment Years, the Coordinate Bench has sustained the same @0.20%. He prayed that following the rule of consistency the corporate guarantee @0.20% may be sustained by following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the earlier Assessment Years. 8. However ... atleast once in three years. The corporate guarantee cannot be same which was given in the A.Y.2011- 12, The Ld.AR prayed that the rule of consistence may be followed. 9. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities and prayed that the corporate guarantee rate

Kec International Limited, Mumbai Suburban vs. Deputy Commissione of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4021/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

Section 90

DCIT, Income Tax Mumbai vs. Peacemoon Traders, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3771/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147

alleged bogus purchases of cut and polished diamonds has been accepted at 5% in other years in assessee's own case, following the rule of consistency in view of the peculiar facts of the present case, we deem it appropriate to restrict the disallowance to 5% of the disputed purchases

DCIT, Income Tax Mumbai vs. Peacemoon Traders, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3765/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147

The Presbyterian Churc Co. Operative Credit and Thrift Society Ltd., Ajmer vs. ITO, WD-2(2), Ajmer

ITA 476/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ward 2(4), Delhi vs. Professional Assistance for Development Action, Delhi

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2917/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 2(15)

charitable in nature within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act. He submitted that in view of the rule of consistency, the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 11(1) of the Act as there is no change in the facts in the year under consideration ... compared to assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11. In support of the contention of the rule of consistency, the Ld. counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang versus CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC). “7. We have heard rival

Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ward 2, 4, Delhi vs. Professional Assistance for Development Action, Delhi

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2916/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 2(15)

Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward -2(4), New Delhi, Delhi vs. Professional Assistance for Development Action, Delhi

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2915/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 2(15)