TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 479
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance made u/s 37(1) without appreciating the facts of the case and legal matrix as clearly brought out by the AO and the CIT(A) ? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in following the rule of consistency and the case of Radhasoami Satsang without going into merits of the case? 3. The respondent is engaged in the business of equity research, investment advisory services and running portfolio management services. During the subject assessment year, the respondent assessee in its return of income showed professional income of Rs. 1.31 crores and short term capital gain of Rs. 6 crores. As was the practice for the earlier assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed order, was not able to point out any distinguishing facts in the subject assessment year, which would warrant a different view from that taken in the earlier and subsequent assessment where no allocation of expenditure was done between various heads of income. Therefore, on application of the principles of consistency following the decision of the Apex Court in Radhasoami Satsang Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 193 ITR 321 the respondent's appeal was allowed. 6. Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue urges that the decision of the Apex Court in Radhasoami Satsang (supra) would have no application to the facts of the present case for two reasons viz. (a) that the decision itself states that it is restricted to the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a) is concerned, it is true that there are observations therein that restrict its applicability only to that decision and the Court has made it clear that the decision should not be taken as an authority for general applicability. 8. However, subsequently the Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Union of India 282 ITR 273 has after referring to the decision of Radhasoami Satsang (supra) has observed as under :­ "20. The decisions cited have uniformly held that res judicata does not apply in matters pertaining to tax for different assessment years because res judicata applies to debar courts from entertaining issues on the same cause of action whereas the cause of action for each assessment year is distinct. The courts will gene....