https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204739 The court held that the Assessing Officer exceeded authority under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act by rectifying based on notional, not actual expenses. Citing precedent, the court emphasized rectification for only patent errors, not revision. Deduction under Section 80M should be based on actual, not notional expenditure. The court found the AO's action unauthorized, lacking material on actual expenditure. Orders were set aside, with the appeal allowed against Revenue, emphasizing rectification on actual expenses and limited scope of Section 154 for correcting apparent mistakes. en-us Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Dec 2012 11:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204739 The court held that the Assessing Officer exceeded authority under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act by rectifying based on notional, not actual expenses. Citing precedent, the court emphasized rectification for only patent errors, not revision. Deduction under Section 80M should be based on actual, not notional expenditure. The court found the AO's action unauthorized, lacking material on actual expenditure. Orders were set aside, with the appeal allowed against Revenue, emphasizing rectification on actual expenses and limited scope of Section 154 for correcting apparent mistakes. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204739