Direct Taxes – Income Tax – Sections 9(1)(vi), 195(2), 254(2), Article 12(3) of the DTAA between India and Sweden & USA - Assessee entered into Supply Contract with Ericsson AB - Assessee filed an application u/s 195(2) of the Act before the Assessing Officer, to make payment to the non-resident company for purchase of software without TDS - It was contended by the Assessee that it was for the purchase of software and Ericsson A.B. had no permanent establishment in India and in terms of the DTAA between India and Sweden & USA, the amount paid is not taxable in India - The AO passed an order rejecting the Assessee’s application holding that the consideration for software licensing constituted u/s 9(1)(vi) of the Act and under Article 12(3) of the DTAA is liable to be taxed in India and accordingly directed the assessee to deduct tax at the rate of 10% as royalty. The Assessee after deducting the tax appealed before the CIT (A) – CIT (A) ordered held in favour of assessee – Revenue appealed before ITAT – the ITAT allowed the appeal and subsequently rectified the original order disallowing the appeal, HC also passed order in favour of assessee - Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by ITAT allowing the miscellaneous application u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act and recalling its earlier order of allowing the Revenue’s appeal, the Revenue preferred writ petition before the High Court – vide the impugned High Court has dismissed the said writ petitions. Hence, the Revenue is before the Apex Court by way of present appeals – assessee contended that the powers u/s 254(2) of the Act are only to correct and/or rectify the mistake apparent from the record and not beyond that – HELD - Merely because the Revenue might have in detail gone into the merits of the case before the ITAT and merely because the parties might have filed detailed submissions, it does not confer jurisdiction upon the ITAT to pass the order de hors Section 254(2) of the Act - the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to correct and/or rectify the mistake apparent from the record and not beyond that - the impugned order passed by the High Court as well as the common order passed by the ITAT recalling its earlier order quashed and set aside - The original orders passed by the ITAT passed in the respective appeals preferred by the Revenue are restored - considering the fact that the Assessee had earlier preferred appeal/s before the High Court challenging the original order passed by the ITAT, which the Assessee withdrew in view of the subsequent order passed by the ITAT recalling its earlier order – if the Assessees prefer appeal before the High Court against the original order within a period of six weeks, the same may be decided and disposed of in accordance with law and on its own merits and without raising any objection with respect to limitation - Department’s appeals are allowed and the decision of AO was upheld