https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283267 The High Court upheld the rejection of the department's application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, determining that the issue of additional depreciation was not a mistake apparent on the face of the record but rather a debatable point of law. The court's decision aligned with the interpretation that a mistake must be obvious and patent to qualify as such. Consequently, the court concluded that the case did not meet the criteria for invoking a question of law under the relevant provisions of the Act. en-us Mon, 09 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Sep 2019 10:33:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283267 The High Court upheld the rejection of the department's application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, determining that the issue of additional depreciation was not a mistake apparent on the face of the record but rather a debatable point of law. The court's decision aligned with the interpretation that a mistake must be obvious and patent to qualify as such. Consequently, the court concluded that the case did not meet the criteria for invoking a question of law under the relevant provisions of the Act. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 09 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283267