{"id":43451,"date":"2024-06-08T17:34:53","date_gmt":"2024-06-08T12:04:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/interglobe-enterprises-p-ltd-v-pcit-2023-334-ctr-805-148-taxmann-com-121-225-ctr-27-delhihc\/"},"modified":"2024-06-08T17:34:53","modified_gmt":"2024-06-08T12:04:53","slug":"interglobe-enterprises-p-ltd-v-pcit-2023-334-ctr-805-148-taxmann-com-121-225-ctr-27-delhihc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/interglobe-enterprises-p-ltd-v-pcit-2023-334-ctr-805-148-taxmann-com-121-225-ctr-27-delhihc\/","title":{"rendered":"Interglobe Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2023) 334 CTR 805 \/148 taxmann.com 121\/225 CTR 27 (Delhi)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>On writ against the rejection of application under section 264 of the Act the court held that\u00a0 merely because an assessee has offered a receipt of income in his return does not necessarily make him liable to pay tax on said receipt, if otherwise said income is not chargeable to tax. On the facts a sum received by assessee on account of interest on income tax refund was assessed as income for assessment year 2014-15, however, said amount had already been brought to tax by revenue in assessment year 2012-13, clearly, said amount could not have been taxed twice. Accordingly the Commissioner is directed to Revise the order whereby said amount was brought to tax in earlier assessment year 2012-13. Followed\u00a0 CIT v. Shelly Products\u00a0 ( 2003) 181 CTR 564\/ (2003) 5 SCC 461, Dwarkanath v. ITO (1965) 3 SCR 536\u00a0\u00a0 ( AY. 2014-15)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 264 :Commissioner-Revision of other orders \u2013Interest on income tax refund-Assessed in the year 2012-15-Merely because an assessee has offered a receipt of income in his return does not necessarily make him liable to pay tax on said receipt, if otherwise said income is not chargeable to tax-Double taxation-Directed to pass the Revision order.    [S. 56, Art. 226] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-43451","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-biP","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43451","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=43451"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43451\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":43452,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43451\/revisions\/43452"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43451"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43451"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43451"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}