https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288605 Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to a patent mistake apparent from the record and cannot be used to reappraise evidence, revisit factual inferences, or seek a rehearing. The Tribunal held that alleged non-supply or improper appreciation of translated material, supposed omission to discuss submissions and cited case law, and an incorrect date of trust creation did not disclose any rectifiable error because the relevant material had already been considered and the factual slip did not affect the result. It also treated the miscellaneous applications as an impermissible attempt to review the concluded appellate order, and rejected them. en-us Mon, 22 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Jun 2020 10:30:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288605 Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to a patent mistake apparent from the record and cannot be used to reappraise evidence, revisit factual inferences, or seek a rehearing. The Tribunal held that alleged non-supply or improper appreciation of translated material, supposed omission to discuss submissions and cited case law, and an incorrect date of trust creation did not disclose any rectifiable error because the relevant material had already been considered and the factual slip did not affect the result. It also treated the miscellaneous applications as an impermissible attempt to review the concluded appellate order, and rejected them. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 22 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288605