Assessee filed an application under Section 195(2) to make payment to non-resident company for purchase of software without deduction of TDS. The  Assessee  contended that it was for purchase of software and Ericsson  A.B.  had no permanent establishment in India and in terms of DTAA between India and Sweden & USA, amount paid is not taxable in India. Assessing Officer passed an order rejecting the Assessee’s application holding that consideration for software licensing constituted under Section 9(1)(vi)and under Article 12(3) of DTAA is liable to be taxed in India and accordingly directed assessee was liable to  deduct tax at rate of 10% as royalty. Assessee after deducting tax appealed before CIT(A)  who decided the issue in favour of the assessee. On appeal by the revenue   the ITAT allowed Revenue’s appeal and held that payments made for purchase of software are in nature of royalty. The assessee filed  amiscellaneous application before the ITAT  which was allowed  and the appeal was recalled. Revenue preferred writ petition before High Court. High Court has dismissed the  writ petition. On appeal the Supreme Court held that  powers under Section 254(2) are akin to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. While considering application under Section 254(2), Appellate Tribunal is not required to re-visit its earlier order and to go into detail on merits. Powers under Section 254(2) are only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from record. On the facts  a detailed order was passed by ITAT when it passed an order on 06.09.2013, by which ITAT held in favour of Revenue. If Assessee was of opinion that order passed by ITAT was erroneous, either on facts or in law, in that case, only remedy available to Assessee was to prefer  an appeal before High Court, which as such was already filed by Assessee before High Court, which Assessee withdrew after order passed by ITAT dated 18.11.2016 recalling its earlier order dated  6-9-20113.Merely because Revenue might have in detail gone into merits of case before ITAT and merely because parties might have filed detailed submissions, it does not confer jurisdiction upon ITAT to pass order de hors Section 254(2) of the Act. The powers under section 254(2)  are only to correct and/ or rectify the mistake apparent on record and not beyond that.   Observations that merits might have been decided erroneously and ITAT had jurisdiction and within its powers it may pass an order recalling its earlier order which is an erroneous order, cannot be accepted.  If the order passed by the Tribunal was erroneous on merits, in that case the remedy available to the assessee was to prefer an appeal before the High Court. Accordingly common judgment and order passed by High Court as well as common order passed by ITAT recalling its earlier order was quashed and set aside.