https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19614 The court quashed the impugned orders and ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing the petition and setting aside the orders without costs. The court found that the Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner misconstrued the law regarding interest levy under section 215, highlighting that the grounds for not allowing reduction or waiver of interest were invalid. The court emphasized the differences between rule 40 and rule 117A, concluding that the reasons provided by the authorities for interest levy were not valid based on a decision by the Madras High Court. en-us Tue, 26 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:50:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19614 The court quashed the impugned orders and ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing the petition and setting aside the orders without costs. The court found that the Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner misconstrued the law regarding interest levy under section 215, highlighting that the grounds for not allowing reduction or waiver of interest were invalid. The court emphasized the differences between rule 40 and rule 117A, concluding that the reasons provided by the authorities for interest levy were not valid based on a decision by the Madras High Court. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 26 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19614