https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233636 The Court addressed a dispute over ownership of seized jewellery between partners of the Assessee, setting aside previous orders and remanding for re-determination. Challenges were made against the Settlement Commission's order raising a demand and the Commissioner of Income Tax's imposition of interest liability. The Court found the Commissioner erred in not considering the power to reduce or waive interest under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act. The judgment set aside the Commissioner's order, remitted the case for re-determination, and directed the disposal of the jewellery through public auction, emphasizing the need to expedite the resolution of the ownership issue in a pending Civil Suit. en-us Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Jul 2013 11:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233636 The Court addressed a dispute over ownership of seized jewellery between partners of the Assessee, setting aside previous orders and remanding for re-determination. Challenges were made against the Settlement Commission's order raising a demand and the Commissioner of Income Tax's imposition of interest liability. The Court found the Commissioner erred in not considering the power to reduce or waive interest under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act. The judgment set aside the Commissioner's order, remitted the case for re-determination, and directed the disposal of the jewellery through public auction, emphasizing the need to expedite the resolution of the ownership issue in a pending Civil Suit. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233636