<?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>2002 (11) TMI 12 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11291</link>
    <description>Withdrawal of deduction under section 80-I through rectification under section 154 was impermissible because a mistake apparent from the record must be obvious and patent, not one requiring detailed reasoning or open to two views. Where entitlement to the deduction is itself debatable, the matter cannot be reopened by rectification. The rectification order was therefore unsustainable since the alleged error did not amount to a mistake apparent from the record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=50308" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (11) TMI 12 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11291</link>
      <description>Withdrawal of deduction under section 80-I through rectification under section 154 was impermissible because a mistake apparent from the record must be obvious and patent, not one requiring detailed reasoning or open to two views. Where entitlement to the deduction is itself debatable, the matter cannot be reopened by rectification. The rectification order was therefore unsustainable since the alleged error did not amount to a mistake apparent from the record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11291</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>