https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313825 ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed rectification applications under Section 254(2). The assessee claimed the Tribunal failed to consider cited orders and incorrectly held non-applicability of Orissa HC judgment as mistake apparent from record. The Tribunal held it had properly considered all decisions including Orissa HC, Gujarat HC, and Delhi Tribunal rulings on interest from staff loans as business income. The Tribunal distinguished cases where interest was treated as business income due to mandatory incentives, which wasn't demonstrated here. Since cited decisions were adjudicated and considered, no mistake apparent from record existed. en-us Wed, 17 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 May 2024 19:06:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313825 ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed rectification applications under Section 254(2). The assessee claimed the Tribunal failed to consider cited orders and incorrectly held non-applicability of Orissa HC judgment as mistake apparent from record. The Tribunal held it had properly considered all decisions including Orissa HC, Gujarat HC, and Delhi Tribunal rulings on interest from staff loans as business income. The Tribunal distinguished cases where interest was treated as business income due to mandatory incentives, which wasn't demonstrated here. Since cited decisions were adjudicated and considered, no mistake apparent from record existed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 17 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313825