https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768001 Review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC is confined to discovery of new material, a patent error apparent on the face of the record, or analogous sufficient reason, and cannot be used to re-argue the case or seek a different view on the same material. The earlier remark that the return under Section 139 was non-est was treated as an obiter observation, not the ratio of the prior judgment, particularly because the matter had been remanded to the Tribunal. The omission to answer the substantial question of law did not itself justify review. No error apparent was shown, so the review application was rejected and the earlier order remained undisturbed. en-us Wed, 26 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Mar 2026 17:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768001 Review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC is confined to discovery of new material, a patent error apparent on the face of the record, or analogous sufficient reason, and cannot be used to re-argue the case or seek a different view on the same material. The earlier remark that the return under Section 139 was non-est was treated as an obiter observation, not the ratio of the prior judgment, particularly because the matter had been remanded to the Tribunal. The omission to answer the substantial question of law did not itself justify review. No error apparent was shown, so the review application was rejected and the earlier order remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 26 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768001