https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396973 Rectification under section 154 is limited to mistakes apparent from the record, meaning patent and self-evident errors that do not require debate or detailed reasoning. On that basis, the alleged exclusion of profit on sale of a fixed asset could not be corrected under section 154 because it involved application of the statutory scheme rather than an obvious record error, and the same approach applied to the claimed higher depreciation on software written down value, which depended on interpretation of earlier-year expenditure, depreciation and opening written down value. The ITAT Mumbai sustained the refusal to exercise rectification jurisdiction and rejected the assessee's challenge. en-us Fri, 17 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Jul 2020 14:42:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396973 Rectification under section 154 is limited to mistakes apparent from the record, meaning patent and self-evident errors that do not require debate or detailed reasoning. On that basis, the alleged exclusion of profit on sale of a fixed asset could not be corrected under section 154 because it involved application of the statutory scheme rather than an obvious record error, and the same approach applied to the claimed higher depreciation on software written down value, which depended on interpretation of earlier-year expenditure, depreciation and opening written down value. The ITAT Mumbai sustained the refusal to exercise rectification jurisdiction and rejected the assessee's challenge. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 17 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396973