https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241646 The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the Tribunal was justified in recalling its order under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to rectify a misapplication of law. The distinction between hypothecation and pledge of stock was crucial, and the Tribunal's correction aligned the decision with the correct legal principles. The rectification aimed to ensure justice and fair play, preventing prejudice to the assessee. The department was instructed to proceed in accordance with the corrected decision. en-us Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Dec 2013 09:31:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241646 The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the Tribunal was justified in recalling its order under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to rectify a misapplication of law. The distinction between hypothecation and pledge of stock was crucial, and the Tribunal's correction aligned the decision with the correct legal principles. The rectification aimed to ensure justice and fair play, preventing prejudice to the assessee. The department was instructed to proceed in accordance with the corrected decision. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241646