https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207183 Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to correcting a manifest mistake apparent from the record and cannot be used to reargue the merits or seek a review of a concluded order. The Tribunal noted that the earlier order had already considered the cited Special Bench decision and the contention that the payee was not chargeable to tax, and had held the payments to be royalty taxable under section 9(1)(vi). Because the alleged omissions raised at most a debatable issue requiring reappreciation of arguments, no rectifiable error was shown. The miscellaneous petition was therefore not maintainable and was rejected, leaving the earlier order undisturbed. en-us Wed, 26 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Jun 2013 12:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207183 Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to correcting a manifest mistake apparent from the record and cannot be used to reargue the merits or seek a review of a concluded order. The Tribunal noted that the earlier order had already considered the cited Special Bench decision and the contention that the payee was not chargeable to tax, and had held the payments to be royalty taxable under section 9(1)(vi). Because the alleged omissions raised at most a debatable issue requiring reappreciation of arguments, no rectifiable error was shown. The miscellaneous petition was therefore not maintainable and was rejected, leaving the earlier order undisturbed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 26 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207183