https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413963 The Tribunal declined to recall its order in ITA No. 168/JP/2020, emphasizing that the power to review is not for re-examining merits but for correcting errors on record. It dismissed the Revenue's application, stating that rectification jurisdiction is narrow and does not allow revisiting decisions based on differing opinions. The Tribunal highlighted that rectification under Section 254(2) is limited to correcting clear errors and not for re-hearing cases. Ultimately, the Tribunal's decision showcased the restricted scope of rectification under the Act, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's application. en-us Thu, 21 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Oct 2021 09:18:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413963 The Tribunal declined to recall its order in ITA No. 168/JP/2020, emphasizing that the power to review is not for re-examining merits but for correcting errors on record. It dismissed the Revenue's application, stating that rectification jurisdiction is narrow and does not allow revisiting decisions based on differing opinions. The Tribunal highlighted that rectification under Section 254(2) is limited to correcting clear errors and not for re-hearing cases. Ultimately, the Tribunal's decision showcased the restricted scope of rectification under the Act, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's application. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 21 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413963