https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24805 The High Court held that the mistake sought to be rectified by the Income-tax Officer was not apparent from the record within the meaning of section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court emphasized that the inclusion of uninstalled machinery in capital was a debatable legal point and not a clear mistake. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee was upheld, stating that no rectification was required under section 154. The judgment favored the assessee in the dispute, and the reference question was answered affirmatively in favor of the assessee. en-us Tue, 12 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:07:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24805 The High Court held that the mistake sought to be rectified by the Income-tax Officer was not apparent from the record within the meaning of section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court emphasized that the inclusion of uninstalled machinery in capital was a debatable legal point and not a clear mistake. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee was upheld, stating that no rectification was required under section 154. The judgment favored the assessee in the dispute, and the reference question was answered affirmatively in favor of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 12 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24805