https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11653 Review under writ jurisdiction is confined to a patent error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new matter, or other recognised grounds, and a mere possible error of law or fact is insufficient. The Court found no reviewable error in the alleged non-consideration of written notes, a cited decision, or later factual assertions. It also held that the earlier binding order between the parties had conclusively decided that the amendment to section 179 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was not retrospective and could not be reopened within the limited remand. The review application therefore failed in full. en-us Thu, 15 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Feb 2010 11:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11653 Review under writ jurisdiction is confined to a patent error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new matter, or other recognised grounds, and a mere possible error of law or fact is insufficient. The Court found no reviewable error in the alleged non-consideration of written notes, a cited decision, or later factual assertions. It also held that the earlier binding order between the parties had conclusively decided that the amendment to section 179 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was not retrospective and could not be reopened within the limited remand. The review application therefore failed in full. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 15 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11653