https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5527 Rectification was confined to mistakes apparent from the record, so an error requiring detailed statutory construction or involving two possible views could not be corrected under section 36. The Court treated the alleged misapplication of section 12 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act by reference to section 24 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as a debatable interpretative issue, not a patent mistake, especially because the provisions were differently worded and operated in different statutory schemes. Rectification was therefore not permissible, and the assessee succeeded. en-us Mon, 15 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5527 Rectification was confined to mistakes apparent from the record, so an error requiring detailed statutory construction or involving two possible views could not be corrected under section 36. The Court treated the alleged misapplication of section 12 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act by reference to section 24 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as a debatable interpretative issue, not a patent mistake, especially because the provisions were differently worded and operated in different statutory schemes. Rectification was therefore not permissible, and the assessee succeeded. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 15 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5527