https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359360 Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to patent mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to review a conscious judicial choice between competing precedents. The Tribunal had noticed the relevant case law and, on the facts, preferred one line of authority; that choice was held to be a matter of adjudication, not rectification. The challenge to the best judgment assessment and the rate applied did not disclose any apparent mistake warranting interference. The refusal to rectify was upheld, and the assessment order as restored by the Tribunal remained undisturbed. en-us Wed, 18 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359360 Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to patent mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to review a conscious judicial choice between competing precedents. The Tribunal had noticed the relevant case law and, on the facts, preferred one line of authority; that choice was held to be a matter of adjudication, not rectification. The challenge to the best judgment assessment and the rate applied did not disclose any apparent mistake warranting interference. The refusal to rectify was upheld, and the assessment order as restored by the Tribunal remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 18 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359360