https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288796 Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to correcting obvious and patent mistakes; it cannot be used to review an order or re-argue a debatable issue. The Tribunal noted that its earlier decision had followed the Supreme Court ruling in Ghanshyam HUF on the taxability of interest under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and held that later contrary High Court rulings did not disclose any apparent error on the record. It also relied on Govindbhai Mamaiya, which reiterated that such interest forms part of enhanced compensation and is taxable on receipt basis. The rectification applications were therefore held not maintainable. en-us Wed, 07 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Jun 2020 11:34:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288796 Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to correcting obvious and patent mistakes; it cannot be used to review an order or re-argue a debatable issue. The Tribunal noted that its earlier decision had followed the Supreme Court ruling in Ghanshyam HUF on the taxability of interest under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and held that later contrary High Court rulings did not disclose any apparent error on the record. It also relied on Govindbhai Mamaiya, which reiterated that such interest forms part of enhanced compensation and is taxable on receipt basis. The rectification applications were therefore held not maintainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 07 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288796