https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17710 HC held that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction under section 254(2) by rectifying its appellate order on the ground of an alleged "mistake apparent from the record." The Tribunal had earlier considered the relevant provisions, treated loans from a financial corporation as borrowed money and debt due, and deducted them in computing capital employed under section 84. The subsequent order, passed on the assessee's application, merely substituted a different interpretative view, which amounted to an impermissible review rather than rectification. HC therefore ruled that the rectification under section 254(2) was invalid and restored the original appellate order. en-us Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 14 Dec 2025 23:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17710 HC held that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction under section 254(2) by rectifying its appellate order on the ground of an alleged "mistake apparent from the record." The Tribunal had earlier considered the relevant provisions, treated loans from a financial corporation as borrowed money and debt due, and deducted them in computing capital employed under section 84. The subsequent order, passed on the assessee's application, merely substituted a different interpretative view, which amounted to an impermissible review rather than rectification. HC therefore ruled that the rectification under section 254(2) was invalid and restored the original appellate order. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17710