https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792011 Rectification under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act is confined to patent, obvious mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to reopen debatable issues or reargue the merits of the original order. Allegations of non-exercise of powers under section 131 read with section 255(6), improper appreciation of an affidavit, and non-consideration of precedent were treated as matters involving disputed facts and legal debate, not apparent errors. In section 260A review, interference requires a substantial question of law, and no perversity or procedural illegality was shown. The Tribunal's refusal to rectify was therefore upheld. en-us Wed, 06 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 May 2026 08:30:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792011 Rectification under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act is confined to patent, obvious mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to reopen debatable issues or reargue the merits of the original order. Allegations of non-exercise of powers under section 131 read with section 255(6), improper appreciation of an affidavit, and non-consideration of precedent were treated as matters involving disputed facts and legal debate, not apparent errors. In section 260A review, interference requires a substantial question of law, and no perversity or procedural illegality was shown. The Tribunal's refusal to rectify was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 06 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792011