https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400622 Rectification under section 254(2) requires a mistake apparent from the record, not a re-argument on merits. The Tribunal found that its earlier order had already considered the managing director's statement, the absence of a valuation report, and the lower authorities' reasons for rejecting the share premium claim. It held that the alleged omission was not an apparent mistake because the original decision rested on multiple factual and legal grounds, and the observation on sale of shares was only ancillary. The miscellaneous petition was therefore rejected. en-us Mon, 09 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Nov 2020 11:58:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400622 Rectification under section 254(2) requires a mistake apparent from the record, not a re-argument on merits. The Tribunal found that its earlier order had already considered the managing director's statement, the absence of a valuation report, and the lower authorities' reasons for rejecting the share premium claim. It held that the alleged omission was not an apparent mistake because the original decision rested on multiple factual and legal grounds, and the observation on sale of shares was only ancillary. The miscellaneous petition was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 09 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400622