The assessee had deposited the employees’ share of provident fund and ESI before the due date for filing return under section 139(1). The Assessing Officer disallowed the same in the intimation under section 143(1). The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance. On appeal, the Tribunal, relying on Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 53 taxmann.com 141 (Bom)(HC) and CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC), allowed the deduction. Subsequently, the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) held that employees’ contributions are deductible only if deposited within the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts. Based on this subsequent decision, the Revenue filed a rectification application under section 254(2), which the Tribunal allowed, thereby reversing its earlier decision. On writ, the Bombay High Court held that a subsequent change in law or later judgment of the Supreme Court cannot constitute a “mistake apparent from record” within the meaning of section 254(2). The Tribunal’s jurisdiction under section 254(2) is limited to rectifying errors apparent on record and cannot be invoked to review or revisit the merits of the case based on subsequent developments in law. The Court relied on Infantry Security & Facilities v. ITO (WP No. 17175/2024, dated 3-12-2024), Prakash D. Koli v. ITAT [2025] 176 taxmann.com 481 (Bom)(HC)  Vaibhav Maruti Dombale v. Asst. Registrar, ITAT ( 2025) 178 taxmann.com 447 ( Bom)( HC)  and the Constitution Bench ruling in Beghar Foundation v. K. S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar Review – 5 J)( 2021) 278 Taxman 1 ( SC) .  Accordingly, the High Court quashed the rectification order passed under section 254(2) and restored the Tribunal’s original order. However, liberty was granted to the Revenue to challenge the original order under section 260A, if permissible in law.  ( W.P. (L) No. 24647 of 2025, dt. 16-9-2025).