https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5404 A settlement under section 34(1B) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 did not bar rectification where the item later withdrawn was not covered by the notice or settlement terms. The conclusive-effect clause in section 34(1D) was confined to matters actually settled and could not extend to an excess profits tax deduction that was not in issue. Once the excess profits tax liability was finally determined as nil, withdrawal of the earlier deduction in the income-tax assessment was a permissible recomputation under section 35(6) and amounted to correction of a mistake apparent from the record. The rectification was therefore valid. en-us Wed, 03 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5404 A settlement under section 34(1B) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 did not bar rectification where the item later withdrawn was not covered by the notice or settlement terms. The conclusive-effect clause in section 34(1D) was confined to matters actually settled and could not extend to an excess profits tax deduction that was not in issue. Once the excess profits tax liability was finally determined as nil, withdrawal of the earlier deduction in the income-tax assessment was a permissible recomputation under section 35(6) and amounted to correction of a mistake apparent from the record. The rectification was therefore valid. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 03 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5404