<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1999 (3) TMI 11 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5732</link>
    <description>Rectification under section 154 of the Income-tax Act is limited to a mistake apparent from the record, meaning an error visible on the face of the record without resort to external material or competing views on merits. Where the alleged error depends on further examination or debatable reasoning, section 154 cannot be used. On the facts stated, no patent mistake was shown from the record, so the rectification order was not sustainable and the assessee succeeded on that issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2025 19:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=44815" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (3) TMI 11 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5732</link>
      <description>Rectification under section 154 of the Income-tax Act is limited to a mistake apparent from the record, meaning an error visible on the face of the record without resort to external material or competing views on merits. Where the alleged error depends on further examination or debatable reasoning, section 154 cannot be used. On the facts stated, no patent mistake was shown from the record, so the rectification order was not sustainable and the assessee succeeded on that issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5732</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>