https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773292 ITAT Mumbai held that rectification under section 154 cannot be invoked for determining whether MEIS subsidy constitutes capital or revenue receipt. The tribunal found that classifying MEIS subsidy requires examination of scheme objectives, nature of reward, and grant purpose, involving significant interpretational issues unsuitable for rectification proceedings. Following Volkart Brothers precedent, the tribunal emphasized that section 154 applies only to obvious and patent mistakes, not matters requiring lengthy reasoning where two opinions may exist. The capital versus revenue receipt controversy falls outside "mistake apparent from record" scope, being highly contentious in tax litigation history. Appeal decided against revenue. en-us Wed, 18 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:34:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773292 ITAT Mumbai held that rectification under section 154 cannot be invoked for determining whether MEIS subsidy constitutes capital or revenue receipt. The tribunal found that classifying MEIS subsidy requires examination of scheme objectives, nature of reward, and grant purpose, involving significant interpretational issues unsuitable for rectification proceedings. Following Volkart Brothers precedent, the tribunal emphasized that section 154 applies only to obvious and patent mistakes, not matters requiring lengthy reasoning where two opinions may exist. The capital versus revenue receipt controversy falls outside "mistake apparent from record" scope, being highly contentious in tax litigation history. Appeal decided against revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 18 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773292