Rectification for apparent mistake is limited; a review-style challenge cannot be pursued under section 254(2).

Rectification under section 254(2) was unavailable because the miscellaneous application did not show any mistake apparent from the record. The application effectively sought to re-open the merits of the Tribunal's earlier order by disputing its treatment of the transfer pricing guideline and by relying on an additional decision not specifically discussed. The Tribunal noted that the earlier order had already considered the relevant CBDT guideline, the transfer pricing adjustment, and the consequence of non-reference to the TPO. It also stated that not every cited judgment must be separately addressed unless applicable on the facts, and that a review-style challenge cannot be pursued through rectification.

---

---

Issues: Whether the miscellaneous application under section 254(2) disclosed any mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification of the Tribunal's earlier order.

Analysis: The application sought to re-open the merits of the earlier decision by disputing the Tribunal's treatment of the transfer pricing guideline and by relying on an additional case law that had not been specifically discussed. The Tribunal held that the earlier order had already considered the relevant CBDT guideline, the subsisting transfer pricing adjustment, and the consequence of non-reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer. It further held that every cited decision need not be separately dealt with unless it is applicable on the facts, and that the application in substance sought a review rather than correction of a patent mistake.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent from the record was shown, and rectification under section 254(2) was not available.

---