https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392437 A later binding jurisdictional decision reversing the precedent applied in the original order can justify rectification under section 154, because the earlier allowance was based on a legal position that no longer stood. The rectification was therefore valid. For deduction under section 80P, eligibility after insertion of sub-section (4) must be tested by examining the assessee-society's actual activities for the relevant year; registration status alone is not conclusive. The Assessing Officer was required to verify the facts afresh, and the deduction issue was remitted for that factual enquiry. en-us Wed, 12 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Feb 2020 12:22:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392437 A later binding jurisdictional decision reversing the precedent applied in the original order can justify rectification under section 154, because the earlier allowance was based on a legal position that no longer stood. The rectification was therefore valid. For deduction under section 80P, eligibility after insertion of sub-section (4) must be tested by examining the assessee-society's actual activities for the relevant year; registration status alone is not conclusive. The Assessing Officer was required to verify the facts afresh, and the deduction issue was remitted for that factual enquiry. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 12 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392437