https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56355 Section 144B was not excluded merely because concurrent jurisdiction had been conferred on the IAC under section 125A; actual exercise of that jurisdiction was necessary for the exclusion in section 144B(7) to apply, so the limitation objection failed and section 144B remained applicable. Interest liability was also held not deductible under sections 36, 37 or 80VV, as the cited authorities treated the claimed interest as outside those allowance provisions, so the disallowance was upheld. The appeal succeeded only on limited ancillary remand grounds, while the substantive challenges to limitation and interest deduction were rejected. en-us Thu, 08 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Dec 2010 12:19:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56355 Section 144B was not excluded merely because concurrent jurisdiction had been conferred on the IAC under section 125A; actual exercise of that jurisdiction was necessary for the exclusion in section 144B(7) to apply, so the limitation objection failed and section 144B remained applicable. Interest liability was also held not deductible under sections 36, 37 or 80VV, as the cited authorities treated the claimed interest as outside those allowance provisions, so the disallowance was upheld. The appeal succeeded only on limited ancillary remand grounds, while the substantive challenges to limitation and interest deduction were rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 08 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56355