https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17649 The court ruled in favor of the Department, holding that the rectification order under section 154 was valid due to a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The decision clarified that the fair market value option cannot be exercised for depreciable assets acquired before January 1, 1954, and that section 50 is a special provision not subject to the fair market value option under section 55(2). The Tribunal's cancellation of the rectification order was deemed incorrect, and the Income-tax Officer's withdrawal of the fair market value option was based on a mistaken application of the law. en-us Thu, 16 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:24:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17649 The court ruled in favor of the Department, holding that the rectification order under section 154 was valid due to a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The decision clarified that the fair market value option cannot be exercised for depreciable assets acquired before January 1, 1954, and that section 50 is a special provision not subject to the fair market value option under section 55(2). The Tribunal's cancellation of the rectification order was deemed incorrect, and the Income-tax Officer's withdrawal of the fair market value option was based on a mistaken application of the law. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 16 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17649