https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24854 Rectification under the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act is confined to errors apparent on the face of the record. Disallowance of expenditure said to relate to earlier years was held unjustified because the expenditure was shown as incurred in the relevant years and no contrary proof was established. Depreciation on a power tiller was correctly rectified because it was wrongly treated as a tractor and should fall under the residual machinery category. Expenditure claimed under section 5(2)(b)(iii) could not be rectified merely for want of a reserve, since the statutory option had been exercised in writing and the provision did not require reserve creation where the amount was actually spent. Rectification was therefore sustained only for the depreciation item. en-us Wed, 02 Dec 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:39:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24854 Rectification under the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act is confined to errors apparent on the face of the record. Disallowance of expenditure said to relate to earlier years was held unjustified because the expenditure was shown as incurred in the relevant years and no contrary proof was established. Depreciation on a power tiller was correctly rectified because it was wrongly treated as a tractor and should fall under the residual machinery category. Expenditure claimed under section 5(2)(b)(iii) could not be rectified merely for want of a reserve, since the statutory option had been exercised in writing and the provision did not require reserve creation where the amount was actually spent. Rectification was therefore sustained only for the depreciation item. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 02 Dec 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24854