https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792138 The Tribunal considered whether a first appellate direction reworking deduction under section 80-IB(10) by substituting the assessee's actual land cost with the construction cost of 73 flats or the market value of 2.96 acres disclosed a patent error apparent from the record. It noted that the land cost had already been accounted for in work-in-progress and in the profit and loss account, so the earlier substitution proceeded on a mistaken factual premise and lacked statutory support. The Tribunal also held that quantification of the deduction had not been finally adjudicated in the earlier appeals, so the doctrine of merger did not bar rectification under section 154. en-us Wed, 20 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 May 2026 08:27:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792138 The Tribunal considered whether a first appellate direction reworking deduction under section 80-IB(10) by substituting the assessee's actual land cost with the construction cost of 73 flats or the market value of 2.96 acres disclosed a patent error apparent from the record. It noted that the land cost had already been accounted for in work-in-progress and in the profit and loss account, so the earlier substitution proceeded on a mistaken factual premise and lacked statutory support. The Tribunal also held that quantification of the deduction had not been finally adjudicated in the earlier appeals, so the doctrine of merger did not bar rectification under section 154. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 20 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792138