https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411844 A mistaken remand to the wrong authority, evident from the record, was treated as a rectifiable error under section 254(2). The Tribunal noted that the dispute was confined to the section 54F claim concerning the Ahmedabad flat and the effect of additional evidence, rather than all issues in appeal. It therefore modified the earlier order by confining the remand to the limited controversy and directing fresh verification and decision by the Assessing Officer instead of the Commissioner (Appeals). The rectification application succeeded to that extent. en-us Thu, 02 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Sep 2021 08:29:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411844 A mistaken remand to the wrong authority, evident from the record, was treated as a rectifiable error under section 254(2). The Tribunal noted that the dispute was confined to the section 54F claim concerning the Ahmedabad flat and the effect of additional evidence, rather than all issues in appeal. It therefore modified the earlier order by confining the remand to the limited controversy and directing fresh verification and decision by the Assessing Officer instead of the Commissioner (Appeals). The rectification application succeeded to that extent. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 02 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411844