https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10825 The court held that the Income-tax Officer (ITO) was not required to include proposed interest levies and penalty proceedings in the draft order under section 144B. The court disagreed with the Tribunal's view that such proposals should be part of the draft order, stating that the ITO retains the power to levy interest and penalties separately. The court ruled in favor of the Revenue on this issue. Additionally, the court directed the Tribunal to address the merits of interest chargeability under sections 139(8) and 215, in favor of the assessee. Regarding the entitlement to weighted deduction on sea freight expenditure, the court expressed doubts about allowing such expenses under a specific provision when they were explicitly excluded by another provision, suggesting the matter be decided by a larger Bench. en-us Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Jul 2009 16:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10825 The court held that the Income-tax Officer (ITO) was not required to include proposed interest levies and penalty proceedings in the draft order under section 144B. The court disagreed with the Tribunal's view that such proposals should be part of the draft order, stating that the ITO retains the power to levy interest and penalties separately. The court ruled in favor of the Revenue on this issue. Additionally, the court directed the Tribunal to address the merits of interest chargeability under sections 139(8) and 215, in favor of the assessee. Regarding the entitlement to weighted deduction on sea freight expenditure, the court expressed doubts about allowing such expenses under a specific provision when they were explicitly excluded by another provision, suggesting the matter be decided by a larger Bench. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10825