Precedent must be applied by statutory context, and a ruling under section 234B cannot govern interest under section 234C.

A precedent must be applied in the context of the specific charging provision in issue. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court ruling cited by the revenue concerned interest under section 234B, while the Bombay High Court decision followed by the coordinate bench related to interest under section 234C. Reading the judgments as a whole, it held that the two provisions operate in distinct statutory settings, so reliance on the High Court ruling was justified and the revenue's request for recall or correction had no merit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revenue's miscellaneous application seeking recall or correction of the Tribunal's earlier order was maintainable on the ground that the Tribunal had followed the High Court decision on levy of interest under section 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, instead of the Supreme Court decision referred to by the revenue.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court decision relied upon by the revenue dealt with levy of interest under section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereas the Bombay High Court decision followed by the coordinate bench concerned levy of interest under section 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It further observed that a judgment must be read as a whole and in the context in which it is rendered, and held that the two provisions operated in different contexts so as to justify the earlier reliance placed by the coordinate bench on the High Court ruling.

Conclusion: The miscellaneous application had no merit and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A precedent must be applied according to its context and the provision in issue, and a decision rendered under one charging provision cannot be treated as governing a different charging provision when the two operate in distinct statutory settings.

---