https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27797 A review application filed five days late, without any explanation or request for condonation, was liable to rejection at the threshold. The Court further held that review jurisdiction is confined to correcting an error apparent and cannot be used to reopen a concluded decision merely because fresh arguments or additional authorities are later discovered. The passages relied upon did not displace the earlier interpretation of section 32(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on depreciation for second-hand assets, and the reference to the definition of written down value in section 43(6)(a) likewise furnished no ground for review. The application was therefore not maintainable and was rejected. en-us Tue, 25 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:34:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27797 A review application filed five days late, without any explanation or request for condonation, was liable to rejection at the threshold. The Court further held that review jurisdiction is confined to correcting an error apparent and cannot be used to reopen a concluded decision merely because fresh arguments or additional authorities are later discovered. The passages relied upon did not displace the earlier interpretation of section 32(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on depreciation for second-hand assets, and the reference to the definition of written down value in section 43(6)(a) likewise furnished no ground for review. The application was therefore not maintainable and was rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 25 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27797