https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409410 The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's miscellaneous application seeking the recall of its order dated 6.12.2016 in ITA No.1520/Ahd/2013, which had found that Jay Corporation held development rights, not ownership, over the land. The Tribunal clarified that rectification powers under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act are limited to correcting obvious patent mistakes. It emphasized the importance of analyzing specific language in documents to ascertain property rights and concluded that no apparent error existed in its original order. en-us Tue, 06 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jul 2021 09:11:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409410 The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's miscellaneous application seeking the recall of its order dated 6.12.2016 in ITA No.1520/Ahd/2013, which had found that Jay Corporation held development rights, not ownership, over the land. The Tribunal clarified that rectification powers under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act are limited to correcting obvious patent mistakes. It emphasized the importance of analyzing specific language in documents to ascertain property rights and concluded that no apparent error existed in its original order. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 06 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409410