https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27143 Rectification under section 154 is limited to an obvious and patent mistake apparent from the record, and cannot be used where the alleged error requires detailed reasoning or admits of two possible views. The dispute over whether the special or general depreciation rate applied to machinery and plant required examination of Appendix I and rule 5, making the issue debatable rather than self-evident. As the essential jurisdictional condition for section 154 was absent, the rectification notice was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. en-us Wed, 20 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:33:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27143 Rectification under section 154 is limited to an obvious and patent mistake apparent from the record, and cannot be used where the alleged error requires detailed reasoning or admits of two possible views. The dispute over whether the special or general depreciation rate applied to machinery and plant required examination of Appendix I and rule 5, making the issue debatable rather than self-evident. As the essential jurisdictional condition for section 154 was absent, the rectification notice was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 20 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27143