TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (11) TMI 487
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ose of these two cross-appeals, one by the assessee and one by the Revenue for Assessment Year 1989-90, by this consolidated order. 2. We first take up the appeal of the assessee. The dispute in this appeal is relating to the levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C. The Assessing Officer had made assessment under section 143(3) and levied interest. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed on 23rd of March, 1989, and since the likely liability of the assessee was more than the cash seized, the Asstt. CIT directed for retention of the seized assets. The assessee filed the return of income and sought the adjustment of Rs. 1,50,000 against the tax liability. Whereas the cash seized has been adjusted against the demand, the amount has not been treated as payment of advance tax. It is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uest for adjustment of the said amount towards the tax liability. Section 132(5) empowers the Revenue to retain any seized assets or cash seized on the date of search if it is found that the tax liability of the assessee exceeds the value of such seized assets. Though the Assessing Officer has to wait for adjustment of seized assets till the finalisation of the assessment, yet in the case of cast....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance with law. 6. We now take up the appeal of the Revenue. The only issue involved in this appeal is relating to the deduction under Chapter VI-A. The assessee made certain investments during the year under appeal and claimed deduction under Chapter VI-A. The Assessing Officer denied the deduction on the ground that investment had not been made out of the income chargeable to tax of the current ....