https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284053 Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to manifest errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to seek review of a merits-based conclusion. The Tribunal had already considered the objection that the show cause notice for withdrawal of approval under section 10(23C)(vi) was not issued by the prescribed authority, the effect of its signing by the DCIT on behalf of the Commissioner, and the alleged inapplicability of section 292BB. As the revenue's miscellaneous application merely sought reconsideration of those findings and identified no apparent mistake, it was held not maintainable and the earlier quashing of the challenge was left undisturbed. en-us Tue, 24 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Oct 2019 18:24:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284053 Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to manifest errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to seek review of a merits-based conclusion. The Tribunal had already considered the objection that the show cause notice for withdrawal of approval under section 10(23C)(vi) was not issued by the prescribed authority, the effect of its signing by the DCIT on behalf of the Commissioner, and the alleged inapplicability of section 292BB. As the revenue's miscellaneous application merely sought reconsideration of those findings and identified no apparent mistake, it was held not maintainable and the earlier quashing of the challenge was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 24 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284053