https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152025 Section 254(2) permits only correction of an obvious mistake apparent from the record and cannot be used to seek a merits review of a concluded decision. The Tribunal found that the miscellaneous application was based on disagreement with its earlier reasoning, which turned on appreciation of facts, evidence, and treaty provisions. Even if the challenged observations were ignored, the ultimate conclusion would not change. Recall of the earlier order was therefore not justified, and the application was rejected. en-us Wed, 15 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:32:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152025 Section 254(2) permits only correction of an obvious mistake apparent from the record and cannot be used to seek a merits review of a concluded decision. The Tribunal found that the miscellaneous application was based on disagreement with its earlier reasoning, which turned on appreciation of facts, evidence, and treaty provisions. Even if the challenged observations were ignored, the ultimate conclusion would not change. Recall of the earlier order was therefore not justified, and the application was rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 15 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152025