https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792084 Rectification of a judgment's operative portion was sought on the basis of an inadvertent wording error. The disputed phrase in para 3(iii) was substituted from "answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee" to "answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue." The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the rectification order and dismissed the Special Leave Petition, leaving the corrected operative words in place. en-us Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 May 2026 13:08:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792084 Rectification of a judgment's operative portion was sought on the basis of an inadvertent wording error. The disputed phrase in para 3(iii) was substituted from "answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee" to "answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue." The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the rectification order and dismissed the Special Leave Petition, leaving the corrected operative words in place. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792084