https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275855 Section 254(2) could not be invoked to seek rectification of the Tribunal's discretionary decision to admit additional evidence without remanding the matter, because no apparent mistake on the face of the record was shown. The Revenue's challenge on that point was therefore rejected. On Rule 8D(2)(iii), the indirect expenditure disallowance could not be finally determined because the earlier order had not adjudicated that component and the Assessing Officer had not recorded the required objective satisfaction on the assessee's claim. The issue was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration, leaving the interest disallowance undisturbed. en-us Fri, 31 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Oct 2018 11:56:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275855 Section 254(2) could not be invoked to seek rectification of the Tribunal's discretionary decision to admit additional evidence without remanding the matter, because no apparent mistake on the face of the record was shown. The Revenue's challenge on that point was therefore rejected. On Rule 8D(2)(iii), the indirect expenditure disallowance could not be finally determined because the earlier order had not adjudicated that component and the Assessing Officer had not recorded the required objective satisfaction on the assessee's claim. The issue was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration, leaving the interest disallowance undisturbed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 31 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275855