https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202879 Section 154 could not be used to seek a further tax credit for rental income already assessed in the tenant-company's hands, because the assessee and the tenant were separate taxable entities and the alleged double-credit issue was at least highly debatable. The earlier authority relied on involved a different statutory setting and a prohibition on double assessment between distinct persons under that regime, which did not apply here. Since credit for tax paid by the tenant-company had already been allowed in its assessment and no clear statutory basis supported an additional credit in the assessee's hands, the non-grant of such credit was not a patent mistake apparent from the record. The rectification claim was therefore rightly rejected. en-us Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 May 2013 13:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202879 Section 154 could not be used to seek a further tax credit for rental income already assessed in the tenant-company's hands, because the assessee and the tenant were separate taxable entities and the alleged double-credit issue was at least highly debatable. The earlier authority relied on involved a different statutory setting and a prohibition on double assessment between distinct persons under that regime, which did not apply here. Since credit for tax paid by the tenant-company had already been allowed in its assessment and no clear statutory basis supported an additional credit in the assessee's hands, the non-grant of such credit was not a patent mistake apparent from the record. The rectification claim was therefore rightly rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202879