https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252400 Rectification was held permissible where the recomputation of deduction under Section 80HHC, after reducing the deduction allowable under Section 80IB as required by Section 80IA(9), was patent and ex facie apparent from the record. The Court applied binding jurisdictional precedent to hold that Section 154 is not limited by the date of the original order when later authoritative interpretation shows the earlier view to be contrary to law. Divergent decisions of other High Courts did not make the issue debatable or bar rectification. The assessee's challenge therefore failed. en-us Mon, 15 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Oct 2014 07:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252400 Rectification was held permissible where the recomputation of deduction under Section 80HHC, after reducing the deduction allowable under Section 80IB as required by Section 80IA(9), was patent and ex facie apparent from the record. The Court applied binding jurisdictional precedent to hold that Section 154 is not limited by the date of the original order when later authoritative interpretation shows the earlier view to be contrary to law. Divergent decisions of other High Courts did not make the issue debatable or bar rectification. The assessee's challenge therefore failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 15 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252400