https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215518 Section 254(2) permits rectification only of an obvious mistake apparent from the record, not a review on the merits. The Tribunal held that the Special Bench's reframed question remained within the scope of the original reference under section 255(3), and that the alleged errors on net present value, remission or cessation of liability, and consideration of the Revenue's submissions did not disclose any rectifiable mistake. It also found that reference to section 63 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 was within the controversy. No mistake apparent from the record was established, so the miscellaneous application was rejected and the Special Bench order remained undisturbed. en-us Fri, 03 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Apr 2016 12:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215518 Section 254(2) permits rectification only of an obvious mistake apparent from the record, not a review on the merits. The Tribunal held that the Special Bench's reframed question remained within the scope of the original reference under section 255(3), and that the alleged errors on net present value, remission or cessation of liability, and consideration of the Revenue's submissions did not disclose any rectifiable mistake. It also found that reference to section 63 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 was within the controversy. No mistake apparent from the record was established, so the miscellaneous application was rejected and the Special Bench order remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 03 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215518