https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36596 Rectification under estate duty law was refused because no mistake apparent from the record was shown in treating the controlled company as an accountable person and in applying rule 15 for valuation. The challenge depended on disputed interpretation of sections 17 and 19 and rule 15, including whether a transfer to the company and the existence of benefits were necessary before accountability could arise. The Court treated this as a debatable statutory issue, not a patent error capable of rectification. The claimed apportionment of liability also failed, as the statute contemplated joint and several liability with reimbursement dealt with separately. en-us Fri, 14 Mar 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:02:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36596 Rectification under estate duty law was refused because no mistake apparent from the record was shown in treating the controlled company as an accountable person and in applying rule 15 for valuation. The challenge depended on disputed interpretation of sections 17 and 19 and rule 15, including whether a transfer to the company and the existence of benefits were necessary before accountability could arise. The Court treated this as a debatable statutory issue, not a patent error capable of rectification. The claimed apportionment of liability also failed, as the statute contemplated joint and several liability with reimbursement dealt with separately. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 14 Mar 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36596