https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779247 ITAT DELHI - AT allowed the appeal, holding that the CIT(A)'s order deleting disallowances for delayed ESI/EPF payments (dated 10.09.2020) relied on then-prevailing High Court precedent and therefore could not be rectified on the basis of a later SC ruling. The Tribunal noted that a subsequent judicial decision cannot be invoked under s.254(2) for correction where the original order conformed to law as it stood; pari materiaity with s.154 further precludes retrospective rectification. The Misc. Application for rectification was refused and the assessee's appeal allowed. en-us Fri, 26 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Oct 2025 09:07:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779247 ITAT DELHI - AT allowed the appeal, holding that the CIT(A)'s order deleting disallowances for delayed ESI/EPF payments (dated 10.09.2020) relied on then-prevailing High Court precedent and therefore could not be rectified on the basis of a later SC ruling. The Tribunal noted that a subsequent judicial decision cannot be invoked under s.254(2) for correction where the original order conformed to law as it stood; pari materiaity with s.154 further precludes retrospective rectification. The Misc. Application for rectification was refused and the assessee's appeal allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 26 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779247