https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192582 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. It was held that the Revenue should have adjusted the seized cash against the advance tax liability, as requested by the assessee, resulting in no interest being chargeable under sections 234B and 234C. The Tribunal found support in judicial precedents such as the Delhi High Court's decision in Kesr Kimam Karyalaya and the ITAT's decision in Shri Lodha Vijay Shantilal. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the order on May 25, 2016. en-us Wed, 25 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jun 2017 06:16:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192582 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. It was held that the Revenue should have adjusted the seized cash against the advance tax liability, as requested by the assessee, resulting in no interest being chargeable under sections 234B and 234C. The Tribunal found support in judicial precedents such as the Delhi High Court's decision in Kesr Kimam Karyalaya and the ITAT's decision in Shri Lodha Vijay Shantilal. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the order on May 25, 2016. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 25 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192582