Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to obvious, patent and self-evident mistakes on the record, and cannot be used to reopen the merits or seek review of an earlier appellate order. The Tribunal held that the Revenue's complaint of non-consideration of authorities and instructions was, in substance, an attempt to reargue the matter and revisit the decision, not a true rectifiable error. It also noted that a similar contention had already been rejected in an earlier miscellaneous application. The miscellaneous application was therefore found to be without merit and dismissed as an impermissible review request.
Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to obvious, patent and self-evident mistakes on the record, and cannot be used to reopen the merits or seek review of an earlier appellate order. The Tribunal held that the Revenue's complaint of non-consideration of authorities and instructions was, in substance, an attempt to reargue the matter and revisit the decision, not a true rectifiable error. It also noted that a similar contention had already been rejected in an earlier miscellaneous application. The miscellaneous application was therefore found to be without merit and dismissed as an impermissible review request.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
