https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29019 Rectification under section 154 was held valid where it corrected a patent omission in reassessment orders under section 147, and limitation was computed with reference to the reassessment orders rather than the original assessments. The omission to allow consequential depreciation after withdrawal of the repairs allowance was treated as a mistake apparent from the record, so the rectification was within time and legally sustainable. The Commissioner's revision under section 263 also failed because the rectification merely aligned the assessment with the proper tax treatment of income from composite letting and did not make the order erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue. The rectification orders were therefore sustained and the revision was rejected. en-us Wed, 30 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:19:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29019 Rectification under section 154 was held valid where it corrected a patent omission in reassessment orders under section 147, and limitation was computed with reference to the reassessment orders rather than the original assessments. The omission to allow consequential depreciation after withdrawal of the repairs allowance was treated as a mistake apparent from the record, so the rectification was within time and legally sustainable. The Commissioner's revision under section 263 also failed because the rectification merely aligned the assessment with the proper tax treatment of income from composite letting and did not make the order erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue. The rectification orders were therefore sustained and the revision was rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 30 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29019