<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Rectification under section 254(2) cannot be used to review merits; only obvious record errors can be corrected.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98095</link>
    <description>Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to obvious, patent and self-evident mistakes on the record, and cannot be used to reopen the merits or seek review of an earlier appellate order. The Tribunal held that the Revenue&#039;s complaint of non-consideration of authorities and instructions was, in substance, an attempt to reargue the matter and revisit the decision, not a true rectifiable error. It also noted that a similar contention had already been rejected in an earlier miscellaneous application. The miscellaneous application was therefore found to be without merit and dismissed as an impermissible review request.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 09:05:24 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 09:05:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=892926" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Rectification under section 254(2) cannot be used to review merits; only obvious record errors can be corrected.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98095</link>
      <description>Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to obvious, patent and self-evident mistakes on the record, and cannot be used to reopen the merits or seek review of an earlier appellate order. The Tribunal held that the Revenue&#039;s complaint of non-consideration of authorities and instructions was, in substance, an attempt to reargue the matter and revisit the decision, not a true rectifiable error. It also noted that a similar contention had already been rejected in an earlier miscellaneous application. The miscellaneous application was therefore found to be without merit and dismissed as an impermissible review request.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 09:05:24 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98095</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>