https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38941 In computing capital employed under Rule 3(6), the treatment of average profits was held to be capable of two reasonable interpretations: one including such profits in the capital base and another treating that inclusion as duplicative. Because the alleged mistake arose from an artificial computation rule and was not an obvious or patent error apparent from the record, section 154 could not be invoked to adopt one debatable view over another. Rectification was therefore not justified, and the assessee succeeded. en-us Tue, 16 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:10:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38941 In computing capital employed under Rule 3(6), the treatment of average profits was held to be capable of two reasonable interpretations: one including such profits in the capital base and another treating that inclusion as duplicative. Because the alleged mistake arose from an artificial computation rule and was not an obvious or patent error apparent from the record, section 154 could not be invoked to adopt one debatable view over another. Rectification was therefore not justified, and the assessee succeeded. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 16 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38941