https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461651 Applications seeking rectification under Section 254(2) were assessed as impermissible attempts to re open merits rather than corrections of a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal held that Section 254(2) is confined to obvious, patent errors and does not permit re deciding debatable points of law or mixed questions of fact and law; non speaking dismissal of SLPs does not convert a High Court view into binding Supreme Court precedent; reliance on non jurisdictional High Court decisions or dismissed SLPs, absent a clear manifest error, cannot convert merit disputes into rectifiable mistakes. Accordingly, the miscellaneous applications were dismissed. en-us Wed, 22 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Feb 2026 12:54:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461651 Applications seeking rectification under Section 254(2) were assessed as impermissible attempts to re open merits rather than corrections of a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal held that Section 254(2) is confined to obvious, patent errors and does not permit re deciding debatable points of law or mixed questions of fact and law; non speaking dismissal of SLPs does not convert a High Court view into binding Supreme Court precedent; reliance on non jurisdictional High Court decisions or dismissed SLPs, absent a clear manifest error, cannot convert merit disputes into rectifiable mistakes. Accordingly, the miscellaneous applications were dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 22 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461651