https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218749 Review jurisdiction is confined to discovery of new and important matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or a similar statutory ground. A review petition that merely repeats arguments already considered or seeks rehearing on the merits does not meet that standard, so it was rejected. Findings on the revised return, fresh claim of exemption, the limits of revisional power under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the sequence of notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) could not be reopened, because the challenge only re-argued concluded issues and disclosed no patent error. en-us Wed, 17 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Nov 2012 00:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218749 Review jurisdiction is confined to discovery of new and important matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or a similar statutory ground. A review petition that merely repeats arguments already considered or seeks rehearing on the merits does not meet that standard, so it was rejected. Findings on the revised return, fresh claim of exemption, the limits of revisional power under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the sequence of notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) could not be reopened, because the challenge only re-argued concluded issues and disclosed no patent error. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 17 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218749