https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12289 Rectification under section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 is limited to obvious and patent mistakes; it cannot be used where the issue requires detailed reasoning or reappraisal of facts. The distinction between a provision and a reserve for bad and doubtful debts depends on commercial accounting principles and on whether the amount was set aside to meet a known liability. Because that classification was debatable and the relevant facts were not admitted in a way that allowed simple correction, the alleged error was not a mistake apparent from the record. Accordingly, rectification was unavailable and the reference application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was rejected. en-us Wed, 10 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 21 Feb 2010 06:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12289 Rectification under section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 is limited to obvious and patent mistakes; it cannot be used where the issue requires detailed reasoning or reappraisal of facts. The distinction between a provision and a reserve for bad and doubtful debts depends on commercial accounting principles and on whether the amount was set aside to meet a known liability. Because that classification was debatable and the relevant facts were not admitted in a way that allowed simple correction, the alleged error was not a mistake apparent from the record. Accordingly, rectification was unavailable and the reference application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 10 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12289