https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23887 The court held that charging interest under section 216 of the Income-tax Act is discretionary and requires the Income-tax Officer (ITO) to find that the assessee underestimated advance tax payable. The court affirmed that the ITO must provide reasons and evidence for such findings. Additionally, the court ruled that the Tribunal erred in remanding the matter for fresh consideration as the ITO did not meet the necessary requirements for levying interest under section 216. The court decided in favor of the assessee on all issues, concluding that the Tribunal's decision was legally flawed. en-us Fri, 16 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:55:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23887 The court held that charging interest under section 216 of the Income-tax Act is discretionary and requires the Income-tax Officer (ITO) to find that the assessee underestimated advance tax payable. The court affirmed that the ITO must provide reasons and evidence for such findings. Additionally, the court ruled that the Tribunal erred in remanding the matter for fresh consideration as the ITO did not meet the necessary requirements for levying interest under section 216. The court decided in favor of the assessee on all issues, concluding that the Tribunal's decision was legally flawed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 16 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23887