https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194359 The ITAT AHMEDABAD dismissed the Assessing Officer's miscellaneous applications seeking rectification of errors in an order under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. Relying on the Special Bench decision in Padam Prakash (HUF) vs. ITO, the Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to rectify mistakes in orders under section 254(2) and could only address errors in orders passed under section 254(1). The Tribunal's decision highlights the importance of adhering to legal precedents and underscores the limitations of its authority in rectification proceedings. The applications were dismissed solely based on jurisdictional grounds on 13th October 2016. en-us Thu, 13 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Sep 2017 18:11:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194359 The ITAT AHMEDABAD dismissed the Assessing Officer's miscellaneous applications seeking rectification of errors in an order under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. Relying on the Special Bench decision in Padam Prakash (HUF) vs. ITO, the Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to rectify mistakes in orders under section 254(2) and could only address errors in orders passed under section 254(1). The Tribunal's decision highlights the importance of adhering to legal precedents and underscores the limitations of its authority in rectification proceedings. The applications were dismissed solely based on jurisdictional grounds on 13th October 2016. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 13 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194359