← All Phrases

“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

DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. West Pioneer Properties (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1333/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit 5(3)(1) Vs. West Pioneer Properties Room No. 573, (India) Private Limited Aayakar Bhawan, 1002, 10Th Floor, Tower- Mumbai- 400 020 3, Indiabulls Finance Centre, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai - 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacw5756A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Kishore DhuleFor Respondent: Vijay Mehta
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

assessment year 2009-10 to 2014-15 the revenue has treated the same as income from house property. The ld. Counsel submitted that rule of consistency should be P a g e | 3 ITA No.1333/Mum/2023 C.O.52/Mum/2023 DCIT 5(3)(1) Vs. West Poineer Properties (I) Pvt. Ltd. followed if there

DCIT, Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Priviege Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1292/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 14A

respectively which were allowed by the department. So Ld. CIT(A) passed the order by following the rule of consistency. 9. We are of the considered view that when genuineness of the expenses incurred is not in dispute and in the earlier years revenue has been allowing bigger amount

ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur vs. Spytech Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 274/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. 7. Before concluding, we may state that the High Court has proceeded on the basis of 'rule of consistency. We do not agree with the view taken by the High Court on that count. In cases where the Department wants

Viney Corporation Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1409/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Viney Corporation Ltd., Vs Acit, E-872, 1St Floor, Saraswati Vihar, Circle-26(2), Pitampura, New Delhi-110034. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacv0446L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.K.Kapoor, Ca Respondent By Ms. Swati Joshi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 30.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.07.2023

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 32(1)(iia)

assessee on ECB loan taken for acquisition/investment in shares for acquiring an overseas company for business purposes and not following the Rule of consistency in treating the Foreign exchange gain/loss on ECB as capital in nature loan as treated by the Ld. AO in AY 2014-15. 4.1. That ... That the learned AO has grossly erred in law and on facts of the appellant's case in not following the rule of consistency and erred in law in not accepting the additional claim of Gain amounting to Rs. 4,65,65,908/- not taxable in the computation of taxable

DCIT, Circle-5(2), New Delhi vs. Centum Learning Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and cross objection of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6236/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit, Circle-5(2), New Delhi M/S. Centum Learning Ltd., 110002 127, Neel Gagan, Mandi Road, Vs. Sultanpur, Mehrauli, New Delhi 110030 Pan Aadcb 3842 R

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CA
Section 14A

submit any proof regarding its allowability under the Income Tax Act, 1961. On the other hand, the ld. AR pressing the rule of consistency submitted 3 CO No. 147/Del/2019 that similar claims were allowed to the assessee in immediately preceding AY 2010-11 and succeeding ... Officer made addition in absence of details of claim on foreign exchange loss and the ld. CIT(A) allowed the same by following rule of consistency and keeping in view assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer for under scrutiny for immediately preceding and succeeding

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Psa Construction, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 145/RPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 250(4)Section 253

Returned income of Rs.77,71,280/-, thus, the returned income of the assessee deserves to be accepted even on this score. 11. Rule of consistency does apply to Income Tax Proceedings: Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: Title Citation Authority s. CLC No. Reference 1. Page 207 RadhasaomiSatsan ... income for the assessment year 2014-2015 i.e. the year under consideration in the present appeal. Ld. AR further submitted that under the rule of consistency when the department has taken a stand in one year, the same modus operandi in calculating the taxable income of the assessee should

M/S. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. The ACIT NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 84/IND/2022[2017-18/]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Nfac) Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Delhi Midc Chakan, Village Vs. Sawardari, Taluka Khed, Pune (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcb 2304 E Assessee By Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 43(1)

reduced from the actual cost of the asset eligible for depreciation. Accordingly, both grounds of appeal are allowed. 8. To maintain the rule of consistency we follow the earlier order of this Tribunal and decide this issue in favour of the assessee so far as the subsidy received

Measage G. G Oils & Fats Private Limited, Bathinda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 1, Bathinda

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 513/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

also true that the principles of res judicata do not apply to income tax proceedings but equally important, is the rule of consistency, which has been held to be applicable in tax proceedings. If the facts and circumstances of the earlier year are similar, the same view should ordinarily

Mesers G.G Contineental Trades Pvt.Ltd, Bathinda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Bathinda

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 189/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

also true that the principles of res judicata do not apply to income tax proceedings but equally important, is the rule of consistency, which has been held to be applicable in tax proceedings. If the facts and circumstances of the earlier year are similar, the same view should ordinarily

Shree Madhi Vibhag Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Bardoli vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 233/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shree Madhi Vibhag Khand Udyog Pr.C.I.T.-1 Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Room No. 123, 1St Floor, Vs. P.O. Box No. 5, At & Post- Madhi, Aayakar Bhavan, Tal: Bardoli, Surat-394340. Majuragate, Surat. Pan: Aaaas 4732 J Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

invoking Clause (a)/(b) of the Explanation 2 of Section 263 of the Act patently in violation of "rule of consistency" is bad in law, without jurisdiction, arbitrary, invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. 6. Your appellant further reserves its rights to add, alter, amend or modify

Satyamurti Ramasundar, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 371/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Satyamurti Ramasunder, Acit, D-502, Ivy Complex, Circle 4(1), Vs. Sushant Lok, 1-Blocka, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana). (Pan: Aaapr0741H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi & Arta Trana Panda, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Ram Dhan Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54Section 54F

case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in applying two different set principles in deciding the question by applying rule of consistency. 4. Facts of the case as submitted by the assessee in the briefsynopsis are reproduced as under: “Factual Background: Capital gain: During the relevant previous year

DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi vs. Hcl Comnet Systems & Services Ltd., Gautam Budh Nagar

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assess in ITA No

ITA 6360/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Vohra, Adv & ShFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Ld. DR
Section 115J

give proportionate credit of TDS for the income declared during the year under consideration. Therefore, prayed for deciding the issue by following the Rule of consistency. 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative did not dispute the above facts and relied on the order of the Lower Authorities. HCL Comnet Systems Services

Hcl Comnet Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-11(1), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assess in ITA No

ITA 5968/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Vohra, Adv & ShFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Ld. DR
Section 115J

give proportionate credit of TDS for the income declared during the year under consideration. Therefore, prayed for deciding the issue by following the Rule of consistency. 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative did not dispute the above facts and relied on the order of the Lower Authorities. HCL Comnet Systems Services

Hcl Comnet Systems & Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assess in ITA No

ITA 5967/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Vohra, Adv & ShFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Ld. DR
Section 115J

give proportionate credit of TDS for the income declared during the year under consideration. Therefore, prayed for deciding the issue by following the Rule of consistency. 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative did not dispute the above facts and relied on the order of the Lower Authorities. HCL Comnet Systems Services

M/S Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., E-8, Epip Riico Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 260/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 30Section 44

could not have travelled beyond s. 44 in the first schedule of the Act. Besides, the Tribunal has also invoked the rule of consistency since the same view of the Tribunal has prevailed in respect of the earlier assessment years i.e. 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2005-06. Recently ... could not have travelled beyond s. 44 in the first schedule of the Act. Besides, the Tribunal has also invoked the rule of consistency since the same view of the Tribunal has prevailed in respect of the earlier assessment years i.e. 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2005-06.” 19 Shriram

Serco India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1432/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shrianil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Ld. CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

case of Centrica India(supra) is not applicable in this case. (E) The disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) is against the ‘rule of consistency’. 17.1 The Assessee further claimed that reimbursement of salary expenses cannot be disallowed under section 40(a)(i) of the Act as the Assessee has already ... Apex Court in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT [1992] 60 Taxman 248/193 ITR 321 (SC) wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court propounded the „rule of consistency‟, no such disallowance as made in this year i.e. A.Y. 2011-12 is warranted. 22.11 At last, we reiterate, that the employees to whom

Sgdc India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-23(2), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8003/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 250

during proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13. It was thus submitted that following the rule of consistency, once the position with regard to non-taxability of refundable security deposit stood accepted in all the preceding years, wherein substantial amount was received

Sgdc India P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 24(2), Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 407/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 250

during proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13. It was thus submitted that following the rule of consistency, once the position with regard to non-taxability of refundable security deposit stood accepted in all the preceding years, wherein substantial amount was received

Mmti'S Education & Research Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 2 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 451/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, The Dy. Director Of Income- New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Tax(Exemption)-I(1), Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, Parel, Lalbaug, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, 12. Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), Victor House, 2Nd Floor, End Of Veera Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Desai Road, Next To Chitralekha Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- House, Andheri (W), 12. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, Adv &For Respondent: Mr. Manish Ajudiya
Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

mentioned that the legal pos this regard it is mentioned that the legal position is settled ition is settled and clear that 'Rule of Consistency' / res and clear that 'Rule of Consistency' / res-judicata is not judicata is not applicable and each assessment year is a separate applicable and each

Mmtis Education and Research Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 2974/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, The Dy. Director Of Income- New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Tax(Exemption)-I(1), Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, Parel, Lalbaug, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, 12. Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), Victor House, 2Nd Floor, End Of Veera Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Desai Road, Next To Chitralekha Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- House, Andheri (W), 12. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, Adv &For Respondent: Mr. Manish Ajudiya
Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

mentioned that the legal pos this regard it is mentioned that the legal position is settled ition is settled and clear that 'Rule of Consistency' / res and clear that 'Rule of Consistency' / res-judicata is not judicata is not applicable and each assessment year is a separate applicable and each