<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (3) TMI 654 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419616</link>
    <description>Section 254(2) permits rectification only of a mistake apparent from the record and does not allow a rehearing on the merits or reconsideration of conclusions already reached. A petition that merely reargues treaty benefit entitlement and the validity of the draft assessment order, without identifying any patent error in the earlier order, falls outside that limited scope. The rectification request was therefore not maintainable on the grounds advanced and was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2022 10:17:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=673028" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (3) TMI 654 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419616</link>
      <description>Section 254(2) permits rectification only of a mistake apparent from the record and does not allow a rehearing on the merits or reconsideration of conclusions already reached. A petition that merely reargues treaty benefit entitlement and the validity of the draft assessment order, without identifying any patent error in the earlier order, falls outside that limited scope. The rectification request was therefore not maintainable on the grounds advanced and was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419616</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>