https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248726 Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used as a substitute for review or recall of a merits-based order. On the assessee's challenge to the disallowance of deduction under section 35(1), the Tribunal treated the miscellaneous applications as an impermissible attempt to reargue the merits and rejected reopening. However, the omission to consider the applicability of section 35(3), being a material statutory issue within the subject-matter of appeal, was treated as a rectifiable mistake. The earlier order was amended only to that limited extent, and the issue under section 35(3) was restored for fresh consideration. en-us Fri, 30 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Mar 2015 16:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248726 Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used as a substitute for review or recall of a merits-based order. On the assessee's challenge to the disallowance of deduction under section 35(1), the Tribunal treated the miscellaneous applications as an impermissible attempt to reargue the merits and rejected reopening. However, the omission to consider the applicability of section 35(3), being a material statutory issue within the subject-matter of appeal, was treated as a rectifiable mistake. The earlier order was amended only to that limited extent, and the issue under section 35(3) was restored for fresh consideration. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 30 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248726