https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210073 The Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application, stating that there was no apparent error in its original order requiring rectification under section 254(2). Despite subsequent Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal held that the issue at hand was distinct and upheld its initial ruling based on the Bombay High Court's decision in Ajanta Pharma Ltd., emphasizing the need for an independent assessment following the overruling of the special bench decision. The Tribunal underscored the limited scope of rectification under section 254(2), emphasizing its role in correcting only clear mistakes on the record, not revisiting the merits of the case. en-us Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210073 The Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application, stating that there was no apparent error in its original order requiring rectification under section 254(2). Despite subsequent Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal held that the issue at hand was distinct and upheld its initial ruling based on the Bombay High Court's decision in Ajanta Pharma Ltd., emphasizing the need for an independent assessment following the overruling of the special bench decision. The Tribunal underscored the limited scope of rectification under section 254(2), emphasizing its role in correcting only clear mistakes on the record, not revisiting the merits of the case. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210073