TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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 order of the Tribunal suffered from a mistake apparent from record so as to justify rectification on the basis that the Supreme Court decision in State Bank of Travancore applied to the assessee's interest on sticky loans.
Analysis: The Tribunal found that its earlier order had recorded a factual finding that the assessee had changed over from the mercantile system to the cash system of accounting in respect of sticky loans from 1 April 1973. On that footing, the impugned order had distinguished the assessee's case from the situation considered in State Bank of Travancore and had treated the interest on sticky loans as not taxable. The present challenge required re-examination of facts, the accounting method adopted, and the applicability of the Supreme Court ruling to those facts. Such an exercise could not be undertaken in rectification, because the alleged error was not obvious or patent and involved a debatable question requiring investigation and reasoning.
Conclusion: No mistake apparent from record was established, and rectification was not warranted.
Final Conclusion: The miscellaneous applications failed since the point raised was not a rectifiable error but a debatable issue depending on factual findings and legal application.
Ratio Decidendi: A rectification proceeding cannot be used to reopen a concluded issue that turns on debatable questions of fact or law, and a mistake apparent from record must be an obvious and patent error.
TaxTMI 
