https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17624 Rectification under section 36 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 is confined to mistakes apparent from the record; an alleged failure to follow an earlier decision, where the issue depends on factual findings, is not a patent error capable of rectification. On the facts, the assessee did not prove any independent source of funds for the minor son's share in the purchased properties, so the acquisition was treated as an indirect transfer under section 9(2)(a)(iv). In the absence of proof supporting a tenancy-in-common, the income was assessed in the status of an individual rather than as tenants-in-common. en-us Tue, 12 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:22:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17624 Rectification under section 36 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 is confined to mistakes apparent from the record; an alleged failure to follow an earlier decision, where the issue depends on factual findings, is not a patent error capable of rectification. On the facts, the assessee did not prove any independent source of funds for the minor son's share in the purchased properties, so the acquisition was treated as an indirect transfer under section 9(2)(a)(iv). In the absence of proof supporting a tenancy-in-common, the income was assessed in the status of an individual rather than as tenants-in-common. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 12 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17624