https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209931 Rectification jurisdiction is limited to patent mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to reopen an appellate order on fresh grounds or as a disguised review. The Tribunal found that the miscellaneous application substantially advanced new arguments on the CBDT circular, section 9(1)(vii)(b), the India-USA tax treaty, an alleged omission concerning one payment, and supposed misapplication of precedent, even though the earlier appeal had already considered the relevant submissions. It also noted that the later decision relied on had not been argued earlier, while the Special Bench ruling cited had already been examined. The request to recall or amend the earlier order was therefore rejected. en-us Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Jul 2013 15:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209931 Rectification jurisdiction is limited to patent mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to reopen an appellate order on fresh grounds or as a disguised review. The Tribunal found that the miscellaneous application substantially advanced new arguments on the CBDT circular, section 9(1)(vii)(b), the India-USA tax treaty, an alleged omission concerning one payment, and supposed misapplication of precedent, even though the earlier appeal had already considered the relevant submissions. It also noted that the later decision relied on had not been argued earlier, while the Special Bench ruling cited had already been examined. The request to recall or amend the earlier order was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209931