TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Revenue's miscellaneous application under section 254(2) disclosed any mistake apparent from the record in the Special Bench order, including on the framing of the question, alleged non-consideration of submissions, and reference to section 63 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Analysis: The application challenged the Special Bench's reframing of the reference question, its treatment of the net present value issue, its findings on remission or cessation of liability, and its use of section 63 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Tribunal held that the reframed question remained within the parameters of the original reference under section 255(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that the alleged factual and legal errors either did not exist or required a debatable process of reasoning. It further held that the record showed consideration of the Revenue's submissions and that invoking section 63 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 was not beyond the scope of the controversy. The Tribunal emphasized that section 254(2) permits only rectification of an obvious mistake apparent from the record and not a review of the merits.
Conclusion: No rectifiable mistake was established; the miscellaneous application was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The Special Bench order was left undisturbed, and the Revenue obtained no rectification relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 254(2) cannot be used to reargue the merits or correct points requiring long-drawn reasoning, and a reframed issue remains valid if it stays within the scope of the original reference.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
