https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15875 A rectification notice under section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, was treated as legally permissible where the authority considered there to be a mistake apparent from the record in the assessment order. The Madras HC declined to examine the correctness of the capital-base computation under rule 1(iii) of the Second Schedule in writ jurisdiction, holding that such objections should ordinarily be raised before the statutory authority. The notice was therefore upheld as within jurisdiction, and the merits of the computation were left to the statutory process. en-us Fri, 27 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:20:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15875 A rectification notice under section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, was treated as legally permissible where the authority considered there to be a mistake apparent from the record in the assessment order. The Madras HC declined to examine the correctness of the capital-base computation under rule 1(iii) of the Second Schedule in writ jurisdiction, holding that such objections should ordinarily be raised before the statutory authority. The notice was therefore upheld as within jurisdiction, and the merits of the computation were left to the statutory process. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 27 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15875