https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65832 The Tribunal erred in recalling its order under s. 254 due to a mistake apparent from the record regarding the genuineness of a cash payment disallowed under s. 40A(3). The Tribunal's decision was not a review but a correction of a mistake, emphasizing that the genuineness issue was not a departmental concern during the disallowance. The order on the miscellaneous application was not subject to a reference under s. 256 as it did not constitute a final order under s. 254(2), highlighting the distinction between final orders and orders from miscellaneous applications. en-us Tue, 10 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Feb 2011 18:39:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65832 The Tribunal erred in recalling its order under s. 254 due to a mistake apparent from the record regarding the genuineness of a cash payment disallowed under s. 40A(3). The Tribunal's decision was not a review but a correction of a mistake, emphasizing that the genuineness issue was not a departmental concern during the disallowance. The order on the miscellaneous application was not subject to a reference under s. 256 as it did not constitute a final order under s. 254(2), highlighting the distinction between final orders and orders from miscellaneous applications. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 10 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65832