Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
Rectification under section 154 is confined to manifest, patent and self-evident mistakes apparent from the record; it cannot resolve issues requiring factual examination, legal interpretation or a choice between possible views. Although non-consideration of a binding judgment may constitute such a mistake, disputed computation of taxable income after denial of exemption to an educational society-including treatment of capital receipts and capital expenditure-requires examination of the nature of receipts, expenditure and the applicable computation method. As those questions were debatable and formed part of a pending quantum appeal, rectification could not be used as a review mechanism or substitute for appellate adjudication. The rectification application was therefore rejected, subject to pursuit of grounds in the quantum appeal.
Rectification under section 154 is confined to manifest, patent and self-evident mistakes apparent from the record; it cannot resolve issues requiring factual examination, legal interpretation or a choice between possible views. Although non-consideration of a binding judgment may constitute such a mistake, disputed computation of taxable income after denial of exemption to an educational society-including treatment of capital receipts and capital expenditure-requires examination of the nature of receipts, expenditure and the applicable computation method. As those questions were debatable and formed part of a pending quantum appeal, rectification could not be used as a review mechanism or substitute for appellate adjudication. The rectification application was therefore rejected, subject to pursuit of grounds in the quantum appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
