https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211398 Rectification under section 254(2) is limited to patent mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to review an earlier appellate decision. On a holistic reading, the Tribunal held that Ground No. 5 had already been dealt with in substance in the prior order as part of the broader dispute over the assessee's activity and liability under the Interest Tax Act. The alleged non-adjudication was therefore not a separate, rectifiable error, and the miscellaneous applications seeking recall were not maintainable. The dissenting view also treated the ground as already disposed of and opposed recall on the same basis. en-us Tue, 30 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211398 Rectification under section 254(2) is limited to patent mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to review an earlier appellate decision. On a holistic reading, the Tribunal held that Ground No. 5 had already been dealt with in substance in the prior order as part of the broader dispute over the assessee's activity and liability under the Interest Tax Act. The alleged non-adjudication was therefore not a separate, rectifiable error, and the miscellaneous applications seeking recall were not maintainable. The dissenting view also treated the ground as already disposed of and opposed recall on the same basis. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 30 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211398