https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267317 Review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is limited to discovery of new and important matter, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason; it cannot be used to reopen concluded adjudication or reargue matters already decided. The HC noted that Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the decision in Indo Rama Synthetics India Ltd. had already been considered in the earlier judgment, so the claim that they were ignored was contrary to the record. No patent error was shown, and the review petitions did not meet the threshold for interference. en-us Tue, 27 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Nov 2015 09:44:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267317 Review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is limited to discovery of new and important matter, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason; it cannot be used to reopen concluded adjudication or reargue matters already decided. The HC noted that Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the decision in Indo Rama Synthetics India Ltd. had already been considered in the earlier judgment, so the claim that they were ignored was contrary to the record. No patent error was shown, and the review petitions did not meet the threshold for interference. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 27 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267317